ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked-

Police Community Support Officers

Hazel Blears: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of police community support officers in tackling antisocial behaviour; and if he will make a statement.

David Hanson: The White Paper on policing, published on 3 December, places police community support officers at the centre of the Government's efforts to reduce antisocial behaviour, including proposals shortly to give extra powers to PCSOs to tackle firework abuse and graffiti.

Hazel Blears: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. PCSO Ryan Carroll, with whom I was out last Saturday in the Weaste area of Salford, will be absolutely delighted that this Labour Government are committed to funding our police community support officers. This is in marked contrast to the policies of the Opposition, who wish to make deep and savage cuts to our public services. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this Labour Government's support for the fantastic work of our PCSOs remains firm and unwavering?

David Hanson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her support. She will know that it is Labour Government money that has introduced 16,000 PCSOs across the country. Indeed, we have not done just that: for next year, we have committed some £332 million-a 2.7 per cent. increase-to help to support them still further. She will also know, I hope, that in her borough of Salford we have committed a range of support for next year, including part of a £2.5 million package to help to support work against antisocial behaviour. That is all Labour Government money, and it will all be under threat under the Tories.

Nicholas Winterton: I am not going to try to score political points. I pay tribute to the role of community support officers, but is the Minister aware that quite a lot of their salary is paid by local town councils, parish councils and borough councils? These councils are finding it increasingly difficult to continue to pay this part of the PCSOs' salary. As a result-certainly in Cheshire-a number of community support officers are going to be put out of work. Is that not a shame? What will the Government do about it?

David Hanson: I agree that partnership with local authorities is extremely important. I know that the hon. Gentleman would wish that support to continue, and we have committed a considerable amount of money- £332 million next year. That partnership work is important and some authorities are considering it.
	I hasten to say, without being party political, that it is not Labour authorities that are doing that.

Meg Munn: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that in my part of Sheffield, the incidence of criminal damage has gone down, with 200 fewer victims last year. Police community support officers are playing a key role in that. Is he committed to continuing with the neighbourhood policing model? Police community support officers function really well when they are supported by other agencies and organisations that focus on neighbourhoods.

David Hanson: Indeed, the neighbourhood policing model was reconfirmed in the White Paper only 10 days ago. The funding of £332 million for next year includes PCSOs and neighbourhood support for policing. It works, because antisocial behaviour perceptions and concerns among individuals across the country have fallen from 21 per cent. in 2003 to only 16 per cent. in 2009, largely because of the 16,000 PCSOs on the doorstep.

Detention of Children (UK Border Agency)

Alistair Carmichael: What recent discussions he has had with the UK Border Agency on its policy on detention of children.

Meg Hillier: I have recently assumed responsibility for this area of policy and I most recently met officials on 8 December. However, clearly I meet regularly with officials on this issue.

Alistair Carmichael: The report published last week by the coalition of the royal medical colleges made it clear that children who are detained in immigration removal centres suffer from mental health problems and consider self-harm and occasionally even suicide. There can be no other area of law or public policy where the interests of the child lag so far behind considerations of administrative convenience or political expediency. When will the Government act to end this disgraceful practice?

Meg Hillier: Clearly, we do not wish to detain families with children where that is avoidable. However, detention is considered when a family has reached the end of the line-when appeals have been made and refused-and they are only detained for a matter of usually a few days immediately prior to a flight being taken. Let me point out that the report in question considered only 24 cases out of those of the 382 children who were in detention during the period of the report-fewer than 10 per cent. It did not take into account the views of the clinicians who worked with those children and who know them. There are many pressures on children, and it is not clear that those pressures and problems arise merely from detention.

Barry Sheerman: The Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families recognises that this is a very difficult area, but the whole issue of people in prison and children in prison has not been wonderful under any Government of any party. Could we be more sensitive in the way we treat these children and ensure that they have the full package of support, even for a short time?

Meg Hillier: I can reassure my hon. Friend on two counts. First, children who are detained have a full package of support, including education and access to health care. Crucially, they are with their parents, from whom I would not want to see them separated. Secondly, my hon. Friend raises a wider point about how we deal with such children. We have a pilot running in Glasgow, with Glasgow city council and the Scottish Government, to try to find alternatives. That pilot follows on from one in Kent, and we believe that it is much better and might achieve better results.

Christopher Huhne: This is not as small a problem as the Minister seems to be suggesting. It was revealed in parliamentary answers in June that 470 children, most of whom were under five, were in such detention. Contrary to the impression that the Minister has given, a third of them had been incarcerated for longer than a month. Does she accept that being locked up is traumatic for many young children and is likely to leave psychological scars? Does she accept that the practice of incarcerating children so young is in contravention of the UN convention on the rights of the child? Will she now agree with me-

Mr. Speaker: Order. Two questions are too many, but asking three really is overdoing it.

Meg Hillier: I am not sure where to begin! Seriously, though, I must first correct the hon. Gentleman's figures. Up to 30 September this year, 25 children were detained for seven days or less-in time for a flight-five were detained for eight to 14 days, and five were detained for 15 to 28 days. A further 10 were detained for 29 days but for less than two months, and none were detained for longer than that. That is an average of just under 16 days. This is always a difficult issue, but we are a Government who are not afraid to duck the tough challenges.  [ Interruption. ] Indeed, we are not. It is important that children are not separated from their parents, and I am not sure what the alternative is. If a parent repeatedly refuses to go when their case reaches the end of the line, they have some responsibility. They are offered many packages, but some choose not to take them and are then detained. I would not want to see young children separated from their parents.

Christopher Huhne: I am glad that the figures have been updated, but the figures that I quoted were from the Home Office. Why has the Home Office not learned lessons from Canada and Sweden, which have abolished the practice of holding children in custody while their parents await clarification of their status? Surely, any means other than custody of ensuring that those people do not abscond would be preferable-the tagging of adults, for example.

Meg Hillier: We go to great lengths to make sure that we do not detain children. It is only in extreme cases in which parents repeatedly refuse to leave of their own accord that we do so. It is important that the family are a united group at the point at which they are destined for removal. I repeat the simple but important point that I, as the Minister responsible, would not want to see young children separated from their parents.

DNA Database

Robert Wilson: How many records have been removed from the national DNA database in the last 12 months.

Alan Campbell: In the past 12 months, 98 under-10s were removed, and 350 individuals in England and Wales, under the exceptional case procedure.

Robert Wilson: I thank the Minister for that answer. Across the Thames Valley police area, DNA data for 10,500 under-18s, a good number of whom are children from my constituency, are held. I accept that it is useful to have a DNA database, but we need to be careful that we do not stigmatise children. What steps is he taking to remove the records of innocent children from the DNA database?

Alan Campbell: We are bringing forward proposals in the Crime and Security Bill to address the concerns of the European Court of Human Rights. We are introducing measures regarding children that we believe are more proportionate and that will meet the Court's requirements, but it is important to recognise that the presence of the DNA of people who have been arrested but not convicted forms an important part of the DNA database, which helps to detect up to 40,000 crimes a year.

David Taylor: Last month, a black rock band from Brixton who were playing at The Oak public house in Burntwood, Staffordshire, were wrongfully arrested after their gig-vehicles, dogs and a helicopter were used-because of a false alarm with good intent. The chief constable of Staffordshire rightly withdrew their DNA samples because no offence had been committed. Is the Minister happy with the Association of Chief Police Officers' guidelines, and is he confident that other police officers in other circumstances would be able to respond as rapidly and rightly as the chief constable did in that case?

Alan Campbell: We are looking at the guidance that is currently available, but as part of the Crime and Security Bill we are also bringing forward measures to make sure that the deletion of people from the database is put on a statutory footing for the first time, which will be an important step forward.

Damian Green: The proposals the Minister talks about are clearly designed to be the minimum change possible to avoid being declared in breach of the European Court of Human Rights again. Instead, the Minister could adopt the Scottish system, which allows records for the innocent to be kept normally for only three years. Will he admit not only that his proposals will continue to alienate respectable people from the police, but that crucially the Scottish system has a 16 per cent. higher success rate than his system in matching profiles from crime scenes to names on the database? It is not only fairer, but actually more effective in combating crime.

Alan Campbell: The Scottish model was not based on any research because none was available at the time. The hon. Gentleman talked about deletion after three years and used the word "normally". In fact, it can be three years plus two years, plus two years ad infinitum. Thus, by comparison, that system could for some people be more draconian than our proposals. It is also based on keeping samples rather than profiles, which is one of the most significant criticisms that the European Court made.

David Winnick: Although undoubtedly there are arguments for what the Minister says, and the Home Affairs Committee recognises that, people have been arrested when there was no evidence against them and they feel there is a stain on their character. That should very much be borne in mind in this controversy.

Alan Campbell: That is why we are bringing forward statutory provisions in the Crime and Security Bill to make sure that when deletions are appropriate, they are made easier.

Police Services (Administrative Burden)

David Gauke: What recent representations he has received on the administrative burden on police services.

Justine Greening: What recent representations he has received on the administrative burden on police services.

Adam Holloway: What recent representations he has received on the administrative burden on police services.

David Hanson: This issue is frequently discussed in meetings between Ministers and police organisations. It has also been recently addressed in the report by Jan Berry entitled "Reducing Bureaucracy in Policing", published on 2 December 2009.

David Gauke: The Minister mentioned Jan Berry, the Government's adviser on reducing police bureaucracy. She was recently asked whether the police were spending more time away from their desks. Her answer was:
	"If you talk to police officers they would say it has remained the same or got slightly worse."
	Does the Minister agree?

David Hanson: We are trying to ensure that we reduce the amount of unnecessary paperwork that police officers do, and in fact it has fallen over the past five years. Jan Berry's report, published just over 10 days ago, gave us 43 recommendations. We have accepted 13, we shall be looking at 22 with her over the next year and we are still examining a further eight. There is a lot of work to be done, but we are committed to reducing unnecessary bureaucracy.

Justine Greening: The Minister talks about unnecessary bureaucracy. Surely part of the unnecessary bureaucracy has been processing reoffending criminals let out under the early release scheme. Has the Minister made an assessment of how much that has contributed to police bureaucracy?

David Hanson: The hon. Lady will know that there have been and continue to be pressures on the prison system. I was Prisons Minister at the time, and the early release scheme is a temporary measure, which is determined to ensure that we release individuals 18 days early. The reoffending rate on that is extremely low, but it obviously remains a matter of concern and is under review by my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary, and will be ended as soon as practicable.

Adam Holloway: Jan Berry also said that
	"what gets counted gets done",
	referring to the Government's fixation on targets. They have been promising to sort these things out since 2001. Why do they think it will be different now?

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman should keep up. There is only one target on policing from the Government -the confidence target of 60 per cent. by 2012. We have improved from 45 to 50 per cent. over the past year and we are on target to reach it by 2012. I suggest the hon. Gentleman goes back to his constituency and looks up the facts in future.

Jane Kennedy: If it appears that the administrative burdens of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 contributed in any way-however small-to the tragic death of four-year-old John Paul Massey in my constituency last month, will my right hon. Friend agree to review it? Will he also call for a detailed report from Merseyside police and the Independent Police Complaints Commission, who are investigating the matter, so that we can fully understand how complaints made to the police were not followed through and the Government can respond where possible?

David Hanson: My right hon. Friend raises an extremely important issue. That was a tragic death. She will appreciate that there is an ongoing police investigation by Merseyside police. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is in discussions with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about what steps, if any, we need to take to ensure that we prevent such an incident from occurring again. We will certainly look at the lessons and make sure we do all we can to stop the use of dangerous dogs in this way.

David Ruffley: Of the 33 recommendations made in the final Flanagan review to cut bureaucracy published in February 2008, only one has been implemented, according to Jan Berry. Can the Minister tell us why?

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman will know that we are working through a range of recommendations. If he looks at the stop and account forms, for example, he will find that we have saved 690,000 hours of police time on such stoppages. We have reduced or removed 27 of the 36 data streams from the Home Office. We are making real efforts to reduce police bureaucracy. Jan Berry accepted that in her recent report, and we will continue to do so. Every step we take reduces police time-for example, there are 6,000 more officers on the front line, whom we have been able to release just by tackling bureaucracy since 2003-04.

Student Visas

Mr. Speaker: I call Miss Kirkbride. The hon. Lady is not here, so I call Mr. Evennett.

David Evennett: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the system for processing student visa applications.

Phil Woolas: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will take questions 6 and, I believe, 25 together.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It might help if I point out that the grouping was of questions 5 and 6, but as I have just indicated, question 5 no longer applies.

Phil Woolas: The implementation of tier 4 of the points-based system took place on 31 March 2009, replacing the previous arrangements for overseas students to come to study in the UK. This ensures that only those colleges and schools which provide quality education and take responsibility for their students are licensed to bring in international students. We continuously monitor the systems, and where improvements can be made we will make them. The Prime Minister recently announced a review of certain elements of tier 4.

David Evennett: I thank the Minister for that response. Last month the Prime Minister gave his first speech on immigration for some 18 months. Having ignored the warnings about loopholes in the immigration and the visa systems for so long, why is he now rushing to implement a policy that will hurt legitimate language schools?

Phil Woolas: That is slightly unfair. The introduction of tier 4 was in part to clamp down on the area about which I know the hon. Gentleman had been concerned-the so-called bogus colleges. We estimate that about 2,000 of those shut down or ceased that part of their operations. In a cat and mouse game, in which we are dealing with attempts at illegal immigration, continuous review is sensible. On the language point, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider my letter to hon. Members which emphasises that we have issued a consultation to look at what can be done, not a set of definitive proposals, as he seems to fear.

Denis MacShane: I hope the Minister will not take any lessons from the Opposition, given their general approach to foreigners and immigrants to this country. It must be a good thing if foreigners come to Britain and then speak English with an English accent, not an American accent or some other sub-English accent. Our universities need foreign students, both for economic reasons and for Britain to have a spread in the world as those students go back to their own countries as graduates. I ask my right hon. Friend to err on the side of British universities in this sensitive case, rather than respond to the xenophobic fetishes of the Opposition.

Phil Woolas: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The value to the United Kingdom of overseas students is very great indeed in cultural and economic terms. It is a question of getting the balance right. We have evidence of abuse under the old system and under the new system, but we are confident because the number of students coming to this country from overseas has increased and we have better controls over those visas.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister will recall my championing last summer of the cause of two Patagonian women who wanted to come to Wales to brush up on their Welsh language skills. Both were turned down, but one came in on appeal. It emerged that these matters involve a 40-hour round trip from Patagonia to Buenos Aires and five weeks' wait-and the whole thing then being processed from New York. Is it not possible to introduce a simpler and more sensitive means of dealing with such cases?

Phil Woolas: Only if the hon. Gentleman can guarantee me that in the case of somebody who gets a student visa but turns out not to be a student and abuses the system and overstays, he will not raise complaints. The two cases in question, which I personally looked at, were not compliant with the immigration rules, and no Government can ignore that fact.

Chris Grayling: The Minister will have seen the press reports at the weekend indicating that the student suspects in the Manchester terror investigation earlier this year had been cleared to work in the security industry. Does the Security Industry Authority carry out the same detailed background checks on all overseas applicants for work in the security industry as it does on all British applicants?

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman returns to his theme of the security industry and immigration. I hope he will support the Government in our new procedures both for security industry regulation, which we introduced, and for tougher visa controls. The answer to his question is yes.

Chris Grayling: So the answer is yes. Will the Minister therefore confirm that the application form guidance notes for foreigners expressly state that they do not need to submit an application that has been countersigned by a reputable British referee-in contrast with the requirements for a British applicant?

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman is trying to present a case that is simply not borne out by the facts. The fact is that there are immigration rules, and I again ask him to support our new border controls, because on that he continues to try to have his cake and eat it. Those are the ways in which we check the validity of people's working rights in this country.

US-UK Extradition Treaty

Danny Alexander: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the operation of the provisions of the US-UK extradition treaty.

Alan Johnson: The UK keeps all its extradition treaties under scrutiny. The Government's view is that the UK-US treaty is working well.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that answer, but Gary McKinnon's legal team has been forced to launch a fresh legal challenge in the High Court. The Home Secretary claims that his hands are tied, but many lawyers-including Lord Carlile, the Government's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation-tell him differently. Why is he putting this grossly unbalanced immigration agreement with the US over and above the interests of a very vulnerable British citizen?

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman asked a question about the US-UK treaty. The only argument that I have heard about the treaty being imbalanced is that of probable cause versus reasonable suspicion. I have not heard expressed anywhere another argument about why it may be imbalanced. That was, indeed, the gist of the debate that took place in the House in 2003-04, when the issue was put before Members.
	In the case of Gary McKinnon, the issue is completely and absolutely academic. There is no reasonable suspicion involved; there is no probable cause involved; and Gary McKinnon has admitted to many of the offences. The hon. Gentleman may have a question about Gary McKinnon, but it does not relate to the issue in his original question about an imbalance in the UK-US treaty.

Keith Vaz: In the latest edition of  Vogue, Hilary Clinton describes our Foreign Secretary as
	"vibrant, vital, attractive and smart."
	She has obviously not met the Home Secretary! Given that very close relationship between Britain and the United States, however, and given that the Home Secretary says he has no more legal powers to intervene, surely the best course of action is a diplomatic resolution to the problem. Will he talk to the Foreign Secretary so that he can talk to Hilary Clinton to see whether this matter can be resolved?

Alan Johnson: This matter can be resolved by ensuring that the treaty we have with the US is enforced. This matter can be resolved by upholding the law. The courts have decided and the prosecuting authorities have decided that Gary McKinnon is accused of very serious charges and should answer for them in the US. That is not the role of any politician or any judge; it is the role of the prosecuting authority. On 5 November in a debate in the other place, the ex-Law Lord Lord Justice Lloyd made it plain that that was absolutely right. The US authorities have given us a whole list of assurances that Gary McKinnon will get full treatment for his illness from the American authorities; indeed, a long list of the treatment that will be offered was quoted by Lord Justice Burnton in the High Court as being extremely impressive.

Crispin Blunt: With the increase in cybercrime and the consequential complexities in international jurisdiction, what consideration has the Home Secretary given to cybercrimes committed and originated in the United Kingdom being appropriate for extradition?

Alan Johnson: I do not believe there is a case for looking at this in the context of a completely separate review of the treaty. We have a situation where a number of crimes are committed in the UK and we have another crime-a terrorist offence-committed against the US by someone in the UK, a British citizen, who did not leave this country at all. It is a question of what the prosecuting authorities decide in this case. Let me quote to the hon. Gentleman, because it is relevant to this issue, what Lord Justice Burnton said in the High Court in July about this particular offence. I think that it would apply to other offences where a crime is committed in another country over the internet. He said of Gary McKinnon:
	"It is true that the Claimant's offending conduct took place in this country. However, it was directed at the USA, and at computers in the USA; the information he accessed or could have accessed was US information; its confidentiality and sensitivity were American; and any damage that was inflicted was in the USA. The witnesses who can address the damage done by his offences are in America. Moreover, because the information was sensitive, it would be far more difficult for it to be put before a judge in this country than before a US judge".
	I believe that the legal profession is quite capable of deciding-to use the terminology-the forum in which any of these allegations should be prosecuted.

Early Intervention (Nottingham)

Graham Allen: If he will visit Nottingham to discuss the effect on crime statistics of the city's early intervention programme.

Alan Johnson: The Government recognise the importance of early intervention, and I was therefore interested to hear about the good work being done in Nottingham when the Cabinet met there recently. I would be pleased to make a further visit and have also arranged to meet my hon. Friend on 16 December.

Graham Allen: Does the Home Secretary agree that we are doing very well-I refer particularly to the crime and drugs partnership in Nottingham-on conventional crime, volume crime, and acquisitive crime which are amenable to better policing, CCTV, better locks and so on, but we still have to work very hard on violent crime, which is often produced by social inadequacy, poor parenting and traumatic experiences in childhood? Does he agree that that is exactly the sort of offending that is amenable to early intervention so that we can grow a generation of young people who are socially and emotionally capable and far less likely to commit violent crime?

Alan Johnson: I do agree with my hon. Friend; indeed, I pay tribute to the work that he has done with Members in all parts of the House on early intervention. In Nottingham, I saw for myself the family intervention programme working extremely well, and doing so because it takes an holistic approach to the underlying problems that are causing offending in the first place. It is not an easy option: there is a non-negotiable element that the parents of the children involved have to undergo. That is a very important element, and I have never seen it operating any better than in my hon. Friend's constituency.

UK Border Agency

Andrew Pelling: What mechanisms are in place at the UK Border Agency to ensure compliance with agreed internal processes and procedures for handling cases and contracts.

Phil Woolas: Processes for handling commercial contracts are ensured by contract approvals. The mechanisms are: up to £1 million, financial and procurement delegations; £1 million to £40 million, joint approval committee, which is a UKBA internal mechanism; and above £40 million, the group investment board of the Home Office. The level of governance is commensurate with the level of investment required.

Andrew Pelling: I am grateful for the Minister's answer. The reputation of the UKBA is very important to Croydon, where it is a major employer. How well do these procedures also apply to those who will investigate performance, and therefore might abrogate a contract, and to outside consultants who are assisting the UKBA?

Phil Woolas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; I recognise the work that he does on behalf of the UKBA, which is an important part of his constituency. Contract compliance is ensured by the monitoring of the contract at a local level by the operational unit and the commercial team within the area, and of course all those contracts are subject to Treasury guidelines. On his point about the awarding of contracts, that is subject to the normal rules, and I am satisfied that we are compliant within the Croydon operation.

Police Counter-Terrorism Units

Patrick Mercer: What assessment he has made of the performance of police regional counter-terrorism units against their objectives.

David Hanson: I receive regular assessments from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, which has concluded that the network of regional police counter-terrorism units and counter-terrorism intelligence units means that a well-located, operational platform now exists for targeting the top national priorities in terrorist investigations.

Patrick Mercer: I am most grateful to the Minister, but there are only four counter-terrorism units up and running, and another four counter-terrorism intelligence units, which are minor organisations. What plans do the Government have to expand those minor units into fully fledged ones?

David Hanson: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we have increased the number of police officers involved in counter-terrorism by 70 per cent. over the past four or five years. Only two weeks ago, I indicated that we would invest about £579 million in 2010-11 in developing the counter-terrorism network still further. We want to do that because of the serious threat, and we are committed to that £579 million for next year but must look beyond that in the comprehensive spending review. The key point is that this is a priority for Government.

North Yorkshire Police

Anne McIntosh: What plans he has for the future funding of North Yorkshire police; and if he will make a statement.

Alan Campbell: The recent pre-Budget report confirmed that sufficient funding will be available in the years to 2012-13 to enable police authorities to maintain current numbers of warranted police officers and police community support officers.

Anne McIntosh: There has been a general drift towards increasing the number of community support officers as opposed to regular police officers. Although they perform a welcome role, they do not have the same powers as regular police officers, including the power to arrest. In the streets and rural areas of the Vale of York, we have seen an increase in antisocial behaviour. Will the Government now confirm that rather than pump-priming, they will ensure a regular supply of funding for community support and regular police officers in the Vale of York?

Alan Campbell: The priority, as set out in the pre-Budget report, is to ensure that police authorities have the resources for front-line officers, whether they are warranted officers or PCSOs. It is up to chief constables and police authorities to make best use of that funding, because they decide on operational matters.

Domestic Violence Advisers

Andrew Stunell: How much funding his Department has allocated for independent domestic violence advisers in the next 12 months.

Alan Campbell: This year's funding has already been allocated, and a further £4 million will be available in 2010-11 for IDVAs and multi-agency risk assessment conferences.

Andrew Stunell: I thank the Minister for that rather woolly reply. May I draw his attention to the fact that in Greater Manchester, the number of recorded incidents of domestic violence has risen from 56,000 to 64,000 in three years, but only one in eight results in an arrest? Bearing in mind that the perpetrators are always known, does he believe that that record is satisfactory? Will he now give more support to the vulnerable victims of domestic violence in Greater Manchester and elsewhere?

Alan Campbell: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the recently announced strategy for ending violence against women and girls is anything but woolly. So is the £13 million that will support services. At a time of financial constraint, it indicates the Government's priority on these matters. He will know that local agencies also need to address the matter as their priority, because it is they that bring the most resources to the table.

Police Numbers

Bob Spink: How many front-line police officers there were in England (a) in 1997 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available.

David Hanson: In March 2009, 125,891 police officers, 87 per cent. of total strength, were deployed to operational roles in England and Wales. Improvements in how forces match work force resources to demand from the public across the range of force functions will further improve responsiveness, public confidence and value for money.

Bob Spink: I thank the Minister for that reply, and credit where credit is due, the Government have kept their promise and put more police on the streets, which was very necessary. Will they consider special constables specifically? They do a wonderful job in Essex, as I am sure they do in other constabularies. Will the Government have a drive to get more special constables?

David Hanson: Indeed, the hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. We will have a special constables promotion weekend to celebrate that very shortly, and one thing I have done is write to all hon. Members to ask them to participate. I am also-this comes from the White Paper-looking at how we can deploy special constables to help with deployment issues, so that we get full-time officers working on other areas, where their skills are more needed. The hon. Gentleman's point is very important and one that I support.

Policing and Crime Act (Section 14)

Fiona Mactaggart: What plans he has to publicise the change in the law contained in section 14 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009.

David Hanson: The Home Office's "Tackling the Demand for Prostitution: A Review" document recommends a campaign aimed specifically at sex buyers to raise awareness about trafficking for sexual exploitation. We are currently considering how a campaign can be used to highlight the change in the law and its effects.
	We are also updating the Home Office circular on policing prostitution and work with other criminal justice agencies. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), who has responsibility for crime reduction, wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on 11 December to outline this matter in detail.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the Department for that letter, but one thing that shocked me when I launched some research was how few men had ever been arrested for soliciting. One hundred and three men who had paid for sex were interviewed, but only 5 per cent. had been arrested, meaning only five or six men. The risk with the new offence is that men do not think they are going to be successfully prosecuted. Can the Minister promise me that the prosecution and publicity strategies will go hand in hand, so that men who pay for sex from exploited women know that they risk getting a criminal record?

David Hanson: Absolutely-my hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point and was instrumental in bringing that legislation forward. It is absolutely vital that we ensure both that prosecutions take place and that the legislation has a deterrent effect. We are now looking, with colleagues such as those in the POPPY project, representatives of which met my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, to look at how we can promote the issue early in the new year, to ensure that we do what we are trying to do, which is reduce prostitution and soliciting on the streets of the United Kingdom.

Anthony Steen: I congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on her relentless campaign to ensure that section 14 got on to the statute book. May I make a suggestion to the Home Secretary? One of the best ways of discovering trafficked women would be to have another Pentameter operation. Pentameter 1 and 2 were very successful-the latter involved 830 actual arrests. Is he considering a Pentameter 3, which would involve all police forces in a campaign to outlaw the trafficking of women?

David Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his recognition of the participation of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough in bringing that law to fruition and the importance that we give to how it is implemented and examined. We are certainly considering the hon. Gentleman's suggestions, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is looking into these matters.

Police Numbers (Northamptonshire)

Peter Bone: How many police officers there are per 100,000 population in (a) Northamptonshire and (b) England.

David Hanson: Northamptonshire had 196 police officers to 100,000 of the population as of 31 March 2009, compared with 266 for England and Wales.

Peter Bone: The Minister has already made it clear that Northamptonshire is under-served by police officers compared with the national average. What makes that worse is that only 10 per cent. of police officers' time in Northamptonshire is served on the beat. Have not this Government completely failed in getting police officers on the beat in Northamptonshire?

David Hanson: Those officers who are on the beat seem to have reduced overall crime by 19 per cent. over the past five years, so whatever they are doing, they are doing something right. I do not recognise the figures the hon. Gentleman used. On the earlier bureaucracy question, we said that only 20 per cent. of time is spent on paperwork. Sometimes paperwork is important, because it leads to convictions and reduces crime still further.

Police Services (Administrative Burden)

Shailesh Vara: What recent representations he has received on the administrative burden on police services.

David Hanson: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given some time ago.

Shailesh Vara: I am grateful to the Minister for referring to his earlier answer. He will recall-after he has checked his notes-that in his earlier reply, he referred to a report published by the Home Office on 2 December. That report mentions that the 27,000 portable hand-held computers given to officers are ineffective because they lack the proper programs. Does he agree that it is bad enough that officers have excessive bureaucracy, but worse still that the equipment they have to deal with it does not work?

David Hanson: As I said, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier. We are very concerned about bureaucracy, and he will know that £80 million of taxpayers' money has been invested in hand-held devices, reducing bureaucracy by some 30 minutes per officer per shift, by taking them away from paperwork and putting them back on the front line. That is an investment to which this Government have been committed, and-if I can be political-it is one of those investments that the Opposition may find it necessary to cut.

Alun Michael: Given that complaints against the police often lead to a considerable amount of administration and given that what complainants often want is simply a better service from their local police, will my right hon. Friend consider giving the Independent Police Complaints Commission a remit to improve services in addition to its current responsibilities for complaints?

David Hanson: In the White Paper published two weeks ago, we proposed additional responsibilities for the IPCC. We have also ensured that we strengthen the role of police authorities. One of the key issues is to remove direct elections, which the Opposition favour, and strengthen local democracy through police authorities, which the Government favour. Those are key issues in improving the redress that citizens have when police systems, sadly and occasionally, fail.

Student Visas

Andrew MacKay: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the system for processing student visa applications.

Phil Woolas: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave several moments ago.

Andrew MacKay: I am not sure that the Minister fully answered the earlier question, watching as I was on the screen in my office, about referees being confirmed as British and suitable for purpose. Will he now answer that question?

Phil Woolas: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for asking the same question as the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett). When the right hon. Gentleman gets to his office tomorrow, he can read the reply in  Hansard. The serious point, of course, is that there are different strategies for checking on the eligibility and suitability of those people. This question has been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and that is why we have re-examined the system to ensure that it is robust.

Topical Questions

Jessica Morden: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Alan Johnson: The Home Office puts public protection at the heart of its work. The pre-Budget report provided good news for the police, recognising their importance to the public and to the Government in delivering safe and secure communities.

Jessica Morden: Two new groups of street pastors have recently started operating in Caldicot near Newport in my constituency. They are doing a fantastic job helping young people who get into difficulties on nights out, especially in the run-up to Christmas. Does the Home Secretary agree that that is an excellent volunteering initiative and that street pastors offer reassurance and help the police to tackle antisocial behaviour in the night-time economy?

Alan Johnson: I do agree: street pastors are a crucial part of the community effort in many parts of the country, including Newport, to make our streets safer, especially on busy evenings such as Friday and Saturday. I have met street pastors myself in various locations and my hon. Friend does a service to her area by raising their profile and raising this issue in Parliament. They deserve widespread praise.

Tom Brake: The Home Affairs Committee was told that there were no plain-clothes officers deployed at the G20 protests, but we now know that there were at least 25. Does the Home Secretary agree that we need guidelines setting out the roles and responsibilities of plain-clothes officers when they are policing public protests?

Alan Johnson: The House will be aware that Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary did a very important report on this issue, which was widely welcomed. In fact, I cannot think of a single area in which it was not given a warm welcome. We have carried over those recommendations quickly into the White Paper, and we will implement that in relation to how we police protests, including how plain-clothes police officers react.

Jacqui Smith: I recently wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) about the case of one of my constituents who was unfortunately burgled and was surprised that the burglars focused almost completely on taking jewellery and other gold. He believes, as do I, that this may have been prompted by the burgeoning of cash-for-gold adverts on our television screens and in our newspapers, often with no identification required to obtain money in exchange for gold. My hon. Friend helpfully replied that he was carrying out a review in this area. May I encourage him to involve trading standards officers in that work and to consider legislation as quickly as possible, perhaps even in the Crime and Security Bill?

Alan Campbell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this important matter. We are concerned about burglary, particularly in these difficult economic times. We are considering the issue and we would envisage involving trading standards, even though staff are already working hard. If legislation is necessary, we will legislate.

David Davies: A recent audit report on the UK Border Agency refers to £9.6 million that was incorrectly paid out for asylum applicants following a data management failure, and £1.4 million paid to landlords for properties that subsequently turned out to be empty. Will one of the Ministers tell us whether anyone was prosecuted for that, and may we have a fuller explanation than the two sentences in the report?

Phil Woolas: I am of course familiar with the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The asylum support system involves more than £100 million of public expenditure-a figure drastically reduced from previous years, as we get in control of the system. The housing element of that is subject to the difficulties, which he will recognise as a constituency Member of Parliament, in the private housing market. That is why we have taken the report so seriously and made improvements.

Alun Michael: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the lessons of the Cardiff violence reduction project, led by Professor Jonathan Shepherd, were rolled out across the country, that would not only help the police and reduce the number of victims, but make a considerable financial contribution to the national health service? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the key lesson is not only that of partnership, but that of taking a clinical and scientific approach to understanding why bad things happen?

Alan Johnson: My right hon. Friend has made a huge contribution to tackling crime in this country, both in opposition and in his early days as a Home Office Minister of State. He could make no bigger contribution than through the work he has done with Professor Jonathan Shepherd in Cardiff-the results are truly remarkable, and it is now in the operating framework of the NHS to comply with this. I see no argument for a local hospital not submitting data to the police service, given that this is not only important in tackling crime, but crucial, as my right hon. Friend says, in reducing costs to the NHS. This is a win-win situation, which is why the Cardiff model, including the use of polycarbonate glasses, is now being used right around the country.

Andrew Pelling: Estimates are that we have 2,000 irregular migrants in Croydon-a number that might increase as a result of the closure of the Liverpool walk-in asylum centre, given that Croydon is now the only inland asylum centre. How many more irregular migrants will there be in Croydon as a result of that change, and specifically, how many unaccompanied asylum seeker minors? That will lead to extra pressures on public finances.

Phil Woolas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the continuing dialogue we are having on that important issue, which comes about, as he knows, as a result of the improvements and changes we made in Liverpool to ensure that further representations need a face-to-face interview. The overall picture is good, because the numbers are coming down. I cannot answer him specifically-of course, time will tell-but we have been in constant contact with his local authority since the announcement was made.

Neil Gerrard: Following on from the strategy that was recently announced to tackle violence against women and girls, which will include some reforms to the criminal justice system, what plans does the Secretary of State have to make comparable reforms to the asylum system in relation to women and girls who have suffered similar forms of violence in their countries of origin?

Alan Johnson: That issue was raised during our very wide consultation on violence against women and girls. The publication of our strategy is not the end of the issue; in fact, it is the beginning. We have looked at taking out certain strands, including the issue my hon. Friend mentions, getting much more information on it and tackling it as part of the ongoing strategy.

Andrew MacKay: Following the Chancellor of the Exchequer's helpful interview recently, will the Home Secretary confirm that the identity card scheme is going to be scrapped?

Alan Johnson: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was making it absolutely clear that the ID card will be voluntary. The ID card will be of benefit to people in Manchester and the north-west, and more and more people are seeking to have one. I have one myself-in case nobody in here knows who I am-which I can show the right hon. Gentleman afterwards. Tomorrow we will be making a further launch in Blackburn, to great public enthusiasm.

Andrew MacKinlay: What is the problem with extraditing to the United States Nosratollah Tajik, the Iranian whom the Americans want under our wonderful extradition treaty? Is it not a fact that there are many people in London, including those in our security and intelligence services, and the banking and financial sector, who do not want him to go to the United States? How is it right to extradite Gary McKinnon and not this fella?

Alan Johnson: The issue regarding extradition begins with the courts. It is the courts that decide: the district court, the High Court, the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights, all of which have been open-and are still open-to Gary McKinnon. When the courts make a decision on the forum-the place in which that gentleman should be tried-the process kicks into action.

Ann Winterton: Will the Home Secretary look at the number and depth of inspections of county constabularies, not least because they impose a huge burden on resources and manpower, and divert time, energy and police officers away from front-line policing?

Alan Johnson: I will consider what the hon. Lady has said, but the role that Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary plays in inspecting police forces around the country is important, as we found out recently with one particular police force where the public had huge concerns. HMIC's role is to ensure that it can assist police forces in reaching the level of the best. There is always a case for keeping such burdens to an absolute minimum and ensuring the right balance, which we will look at as part of our constant war against bureaucracy in the police force.

Paul Flynn: Will the Home Secretary guarantee that the new chairperson of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will be someone of genuine scientific independence who will challenge the evidence-free policies pursued by all Governments since 1971, which have resulted in Britain having the worst drug problems in Europe?

Alan Johnson: I will of course ensure that the chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has those attributes. Indeed, we have agreed to a member of the advisory council being part of the interviewing panel for the new chairman.

Chloe Smith: Does the Minister not agree that the number of speed cameras in Norfolk should be increased to a level that would allow more of my constituents to benefit from the Norfolk safety camera partnership?

Alan Johnson: It is good to hear someone speaking up for speed cameras; indeed, I am delighted. The issue is of course an operational matter for Norfolk police, which I am absolutely sure will be aware of the hon. Lady's intervention. I, for one, am a big fan of speed cameras.

David Taylor: The number of procedures under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 continues to rise, with 4 million sentient beings the target that we see each year. Is the Home Secretary happy with the effectiveness of the legislation? The policy of reduction, refinement and replacement is clearly not working. What alternatives might there be?

Meg Hillier: We have a policy of reduction and ensuring that we do not license unnecessary animal procedures. We do not have an upper cap on such procedures, however, and it is important that each application is considered in the proper way on the science available.

Evan Harris: When the Home Secretary dismissed David Nutt, the chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, two other independent scientific advisers resigned. When the Home Secretary said that he had no regrets, three others resigned. Is he still of the view that he would do the same thing now, given the outcry from independent scientists, if the circumstances were the same?

Alan Johnson: I would absolutely do the same thing. The Select Committee on Science and Technology, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who is the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, has done us all a service by not concentrating on the past, as he continually does, but by looking to the future, particularly in relation to the contribution made by Lord Rees from the other place.

Fiona Mactaggart: I had a very useful meeting with the Immigration Minister earlier this summer to discuss my concerns about the administration of the visa system in Pakistan. I wonder whether he can now reassure the House that the administration of visas in that post is up to speed, satisfactory and being carried out with integrity.

Phil Woolas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those issues as she did; they were important to the process. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary visited Islamabad and gave assurances, which we have now met. There is some work remaining to be done on appeals, where the appeals have been won and the visas have to be issued and we have to contact the individuals concerned, but we are now on top of that situation.

David Howarth: The Home Secretary referred earlier to the HMIC report "Adapting to Protest", and its relationship to the White Paper. What are the Government intending to do about an HMIC recommendation that has not been carried forward into the White Paper-namely, that the position and status of
	"the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) must have transparent governance and accountability structures, particularly when it is engaged in quasi-operational roles, such as the collation and retention of personal data"?

Alan Johnson: Of course, that is a matter not just for us but for ACPO itself. The new chairman of ACPO is keen to look at how the association can be changed. He has a number of ideas, and it is right that we take that recommendation from HMIC forward in discussions with ACPO. That it not to say that it has been shelved; it is being progressed, but in a different way from the other recommendations that were placed in the White Paper.

Philip Hollobone: The Office for National Statistics projects that, unless immigration is brought into balance with emigration, it will be impossible to keep the UK's population below 70 million. Is the Home Secretary concerned about that? If so, what is he going to do about it?

Alan Johnson: I have made it absolutely plain that I do not believe that we will get to 70 million. The projections from the ONS do not take into account the changes over the past few years, and it would be a big mistake to think that the next 10 years are going to be like the previous 10 years in relation to movements around the world, in relation to the conflicts in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and elsewhere. Indeed, I think that those projections will change over time, as previous projections have done.

Afghanistan and the EU Council

Gordon Brown: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on my visit to Afghanistan and to report on the conclusions of the European Council and our role in the global talks on climate change. First, Afghanistan. On Saturday and Sunday this weekend, I visited our troops in Helmand and Kandahar, and met President Karzai and his Defence, Foreign Affairs, Interior and Security Ministers. I also met our commanders on the ground, and Afghan army leaders. Today, I have had a meeting of our National Security Committee, with the Chief of Defence and the chief of our security services, and talked to NATO Secretary-General Rasmussen.
	The first purpose of my visit to Afghanistan was to thank our brave armed forces in a year in which 100 of their colleagues have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. I wanted to acknowledge and congratulate them on the dedicated work that they continue to do, day after day, and, as Christmas draws near, to wish them and their families well. I think that I speak for everyone when I say that the thoughts and prayers of the House and the whole country are with them. British people are safer at home because our troops are fighting for our safety this Christmas in Afghanistan.
	I wanted also to assess progress to reinforce our campaign in Afghanistan, and, in my meetings with President Karzai and his team of Ministers, to begin preparations for the conference on the future of Afghanistan that will be held in London on 28 January-an event which I believe will galvanise the international effort on political and economic progress, as well as on security, and to which President Karzai has agreed to present his plans for the country's future.
	Our strategy is to ensure that al-Qaeda can never regain free rein in Afghanistan. To achieve that, we must weaken the Taliban and strengthen Afghanistan, stage by stage, district by district and province by province, putting the Afghans in control of their own security. But we must first address the Taliban insurgency with all the resources and power that we have at our disposal. Yesterday, I flew on one of the newly deployed Merlin helicopters. Over the past three years, we have doubled helicopter numbers, and more than doubled helicopter flying hours. There will be further increases in both over the coming months.
	I also saw the mine-resistant Mastiff patrol vehicles and the smaller but equally well-protected Ridgback vehicles, and heard how since the summer we have increased the number of Mastiff by more than 80 per cent. and almost doubled the number of Ridgback-hundreds of new vehicles funded from the Treasury reserve, which are now every month saving lives in Afghanistan.
	Aerial surveillance helps us track and target Taliban improvised explosive devices, and that surveillance has now been increased by over 20 per cent. Yesterday I asked for and received an assurance from President Karzai of the new assistance the Afghan people will give us in detecting and dismantling these improvised explosive devices. Afghan forces will now be trained, as I saw yesterday, to detect and disable IEDs. There will be more local police on the ground and we will be training 10,000 police recruits. There will be better intelligence from the Afghan people about the source of planned IED attacks and encouragement not to harbour those planning explosive attacks on British soldiers.
	I can say now that we will go further in providing more equipment and support to our armed forces. Tomorrow, the Defence Secretary will announce plans for more equipment for the Afghan campaign, including more specialist counter-IED support. The latest tranche of urgent operational funding from the Treasury will include an extra £10 million for hand-held mine detectors to follow the £12 million set aside earlier for new explosive disposal robots, over 30 of which are now in operation tracking IEDs. I can also announce a package of longer-term investment in our counter-IED capability, including new and enhanced facilities for training and for intelligence. This will amount to an extra £50 million a year-£150 million in total this year and over the next two years.
	Our strategy involves working with the Afghan army and police so that over time they can take security control. President Karzai confirmed to me that he is increasing the number of Afghan troops in Helmand to 10,000. Already in the last few days, 500 new troops have arrived. Once the police training college we are running in Helmand is at full strength from the spring, there alone we will be able to train 2,000 police officers every year.
	Yesterday I saw for myself the reality of British forces mentoring and partnering Afghan troops and the new momentum that is resulting from that. The Taliban are a determined adversary; they will not give up easily. I am under no illusion-there will be hard fighting ahead-but I draw great confidence from the immense professionalism of our servicemen and women and from the telling effect they are already having on the enemy and the galvanising impact they are having on the Afghan forces they are partnering.
	I can report that 36 countries have now offered additional manpower to the Afghan campaign. We know that the planned increase in American, British and Afghan forces over the coming weeks and months will allow us to review force ratios and develop a new balance in Helmand. As I have said to the House, the priority for the additional British forces is to thicken in central Helmand and to shift the emphasis towards partnering Afghan forces. I can report to the House that commanders on the ground told me yesterday that already in two thirds of British bases, our forces patrol jointly with their Afghan counterparts. It is by partnering in this way-first in the army and then with the police-that we will enable the Afghans to step up to the challenge of dealing with the Taliban and with extremism, and, ultimately, when the conditions are right, that we will allow our troops to return home.
	I also saw from my visit and from my discussions with our commanders and civilian leaders that we are seeing the beginnings of the political process, which must complement our military strategy. Tribal and town elders already provide the kind of effective, accountable grass-roots government that will be the foundation for any successful political strategy.
	So the decisions we have made in 2009 set a new framework for action in 2010. Partnership with Afghan forces will turn Afghanisation from an aspiration into a real force for progress in every district. Even closer working between our military and civilian missions will allow military action to provide the space for Afghan institutions owned by the Afghan people to develop at a faster pace.
	Mr. Speaker, 68 international delegations will come to London for the 28 January conference on Afghanistan. All 43 powers engaged in the international coalition will attend, together with other regional and Muslim partners and international organisations, and they will be led by the Secretaries-General of the United Nations and NATO. I agreed with President Karzai that this conference will deliver a new compact between Afghanistan and the international community based on priorities that he has outlined.
	The first of those priorities is security. We expect nations to announce troop deployments building on the total of 140,000 troops promised for 2010. I hope that the London conference will also be able to set out the next stage in a longer-term plan: the changing balance between alliance forces and Afghan army and defence forces as the number of Afghan forces increases from 90,000 to 135,000 next year and possibly to 175,000 later, as well as, of course, the future numbers, roles and tasks of the police, intelligence services and local security initiatives in Afghanistan.
	Secondly, in London, NATO and international security assistance force partners must set out an outline programme for the transfer of lead responsibility from coalition to Afghan forces, along with an agreed set of conditions and criteria to establish the eligibility of provinces and districts for transfer. I hope we can agree in London that that process can begin during 2010, subject to conditions on the ground.
	The third priority relates to reintegration. London must secure international support and financial backing for Afghan-led resettlement and reintegration programmes. Fourthly, there is the issue of economic development. As President Karzai proceeds with an anti-corruption programme, London must provide comprehensive long-term support for the Afghan economy, including support for farmers and working people in the towns and villages, in order to offer them a greater stake in the future of their country. That will include providing Afghans with credible alternatives to the poppy and the insurgency.
	Finally, London must address the issue of co-ordinating international efforts on Afghanistan. That means reaffirming the role of the United Nations, announcing the new special representative of the Secretary-General, and announcing stronger civilian co-ordination in ISAF. London must also encourage a new set of relationships between Afghanistan and its neighbours, and, in particular, better joint working with Pakistan.
	Although Afghanistan and Pakistan are different countries with their own cultural traditions and histories, they are both at the epicentre of global terrorism. Our national security interests require us to deny al-Qaeda space in which to operate across Pakistan, and also to deny it the option of returning to operate in Afghanistan. One of the biggest advances of the last year is increased co-operation with the Pakistan authorities in support of the efforts involved in the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and we want to build on that in the coming months.
	As part of our partnership with the Pakistani armed forces, construction is now under way of the new UK-funded Baluchistan training facility, in which British mentors will be working with Pakistani training staff to build counter-insurgency capability for the 30,000-strong Baluchistan frontier corps. As part of our partnership with the civilian Government of Pakistan, the new education taskforce, which is focused on implementing education reforms, is meeting for the first time today in Islamabad. Moreover, £250 million of Britain's development assistance to Pakistan is directed towards education, as I agreed with President Zardari earlier this month, because nothing is more important to addressing the root causes of so many of Pakistan's problems than the building of a strong universal state education system, free from extremist influence and offering a viable alternative to low-quality schools, which include the poorly regulated and extremist madrassahs.
	One of the first decisions of the European Council was to reiterate its strong commitments to promoting stability and development in Afghanistan and Pakistan. A second decision was to express the united view of Europe that there was "grave concern" about Iran's nuclear weapons intentions. We recognised-here I quote from the communiqué-that Iran has
	"so far done nothing to rebuild confidence of the international community in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme."
	While we agreed that our offer of renegotiation and negotiation remains on the table, because of our continuing concerns about Iran's nuclear programme we agreed to begin working on options for sanctions in the new year.
	The Council also discussed the economic recovery, jobs and sustainable growth, and how Europe could move forward a climate change deal at Copenhagen. We reiterated unanimously that policies in support of the economy should
	"remain in place and only be withdrawn when recovery is fully secured."
	The Council
	"welcomed the rapid and determined action"
	taken across Europe to strengthen financial regulation and supervision. It also agreed that
	"Remuneration policies within the financial sector must promote sound and effective risk management".
	Following the introduction in the UK of an additional bank payroll tax when bank and building society employees' discretionary bonuses are above £25,000, the Council encouraged
	"Member States to promptly consider available short-term options"
	to implement "sound compensation practices".
	Fourthly, in response to a British initiative, the Council emphasised
	"the importance of renewing the economic and social contract between financial institutions and the society they serve and of ensuring that the public benefits in good times and is protected from risk."
	The Council encouraged the International Monetary Fund in its review to
	"consider the full range of options including insurance fees, resolution funds, contingent capital arrangements and a global financial transaction levy."
	There are very few moments in history when nations are together summoned to make common decisions that will reshape the lives of every family, potentially for generations to come. Our aim must be an ambitious climate change deal in Copenhagen that will enable the European Union to make good its commitment that we
	"move to a 30 per cent. reduction"
	in carbon emission levels
	"by 2020 compared to 1990".
	The agreement in Copenhagen must also include a clear financial framework for the short, medium and longer terms. This financial agreement must address the great injustice that is climate change: that those hit first and hardest by climate change are those who have done least harm; and that, in fact, 98 per cent. of those most severely affected and dying live in the poorest countries, which account for only 8 per cent. of global emissions. So it is essential that we honour our responsibility for helping meet the costs they face in adapting to, and mitigating the consequences of, climate change.
	I can report to the House that, to assist in adaptation and mitigation, the European Union has pledged €7.2 billion-or £6.6 billion-over three years; that is €2.4 billion for each of the years 2010, 2011 and 2012. This should enable the world to reach its aim of $10 billion in climate change help for each year until 2012. Let me say that this financial agreement could not have got off the ground without the strongest European co-operation.
	Britain will contribute £1.5 billion, but there must also be additional and predictable finance in the medium term to 2020 and beyond. The figure of €100 billion has been set for the long-term climate change needs of developing countries by 2020, and the European Council reconfirmed its commitment to "provide its fair share" of this international public support. I can say to the House that from 2013 the UK will provide additional climate finance over and above our 0.7 per cent. overseas development commitment, and that the European Council reaffirmed its "official development assistance commitments" in view of the
	"impact of the economic crisis on the poorest."
	There is an urgent need to support rainforest countries. Twenty per cent. of early finance should be allocated to forest protection. To achieve a reduction in deforestation of 25 per cent. by 2015, leading to a 50 per cent. reduction in 2020 and a complete halt in 2030, will require global financing of about $25 billion over the period 2010-15. A majority of that should come from developed countries, to support the rainforest countries' own efforts.
	Today, we send a message to all of Europe and to the world: there is work to do. We are only halfway to an agreement. Now is the time for developed and developing countries not to divide among each other, but to do what no conference of 192 countries has ever achieved before: to come together with a forward-looking programme to advance our shared goals.
	This week, world leaders are gathering in Copenhagen and, as I have indicated to the House authorities and Opposition leaders, I will join global leaders in Copenhagen, starting from Tuesday with meetings with leaders from the African Union and the European Union, and the UN Secretary-General and the Danish presidency, as well as representatives from the hard-hit small island states.
	The agreement at Copenhagen must be ambitious, global, legally binding within months, consistent with a maximum global warming of 2° C and ensure the fairest financial settlement for the poorest countries. Britain, our European partners and the Commonwealth will continue to work tirelessly for the best result at Copenhagen, and I commend this statement to the House.

David Cameron: The European Council covered three main areas: foreign affairs, the environment and economic issues. I want to ask about all three, as well as the vital issue of Afghanistan.
	On Afghanistan, as the Prime Minister knows, we have supported the increase in US and UK troop numbers, and, as the Prime Minister has said, at Christmas time we should all be thinking of our forces and their families. I would like to pay tribute to all those charities and organisations sending gifts, cards and presents to our forces in Afghanistan. Our forces should be on our minds for all that they are doing.
	On strategy, we believe that this is the last best opportunity to get this right. Does the Prime Minister not agree that everything now needs to be brought together, including having the right concentration of troops in every part of southern Afghanistan? He talked about thickening the troop presence in central Helmand, and we look forward to hearing more about that. Perhaps he can tell us when he will be able to update the House on what is being done specifically to make sure that British troops cover fewer areas, in greater density-we believe that that is vital.
	On the issue of the Afghan national army-the Prime Minister, like me, saw it being trained at first hand, and it is incredibly impressive-does he agree that we are now probably going as fast as we can and that to go any faster would involve a danger that the quality of recruits would suffer? Can he tell the House a little about what is being done to make sure that those Afghan national army recruits who are trained and then sent to the south of Afghanistan actually go to the south of Afghanistan, and that the units function properly?
	On the London conference, about which the Prime Minister said quite a lot, could he give clarification about the new individual working on behalf of the UN Secretary-General? Does he still agree with us that it would be good to have someone over and above that to co-ordinate all the civilian side, rather in the same way that Stanley McChrystal is co-ordinating all the military side? That is what we have been pushing for, and perhaps the Prime Minister could clarify whether that is still the Government's position.
	On Iran, does the Prime Minister agree that the time has come for the EU to take a much stronger line? It is clear that talks with Iran are not moving, but the summit just referred to "considering", as the Prime Minister said, options for next steps. Should not those specifically include three things at the very least: a tough new inspections regime on Iranian cargo; a ban on any new European investment in Iranian oil and gas; and serious financial sanctions like those that exist in the United States? We have been here before. The Prime Minister said in June 2008 that
	"action will start today for a new phase of sanctions on oil and gas."
	Can he assure the House that this time the essential measures will be finally agreed and put into place?
	On Copenhagen, can the Prime Minister be clear about what he thinks can now be achieved? Does he agree with Yvo de Boer, the UN's chief climate negotiator, that achieving a full legally binding agreement is no longer possible at Copenhagen itself? If he is right about that, is it not essential that we see a full political declaration agreed this week? Is that not the minimum that the world has a right to expect? Does the Prime Minister agree with us that it is vital that any agreement is consistent with keeping global warming below the 2° C threshold?
	On the issue of funding, the Prime Minister gave us the figures, but could he tell us a bit more about where the money is coming from? The UK's contribution was originally £800 million, then it was £1.2 billion and then it was £1.5 billion. Can he tell us where this is coming from? If, as the Prime Minister's spokesman said on Friday, it is coming from the aid budget, can the Prime Minister tell us whether this will have any impact on other aid programmes?
	Turning to economic issues, this Prime Minister once described the UK budget rebate as "non-negotiable"-that was before he gave £7 billion of that rebate away. When he did so-this is the reason for asking the question today-Tony Blair said that the Government had obtained in return a review of the EU budget. That was meant to start in 2008 and to finish by the end of 2009, but it is absolutely nowhere near finishing. Indeed, in the draft summit conclusions the deadline slipped to next July, and in the final conclusions it slipped another six months, to the end of 2010. At a time when budgets are being cut in the UK, does the Prime Minister agree that in reviewing the EU budget, the main purpose should be to push for a real-terms cut in that budget? Does he also think that while public servants in this country are getting low pay increases or even, in some cases, pay freezes, it is completely wrong for EU civil servants to receive a 3.7 per cent. pay rise?
	Turning to the new Commission, is it not the case that the Prime Minister's whole approach to this has been wrong from start to finish? He started by spending valuable political capital on a completely misconceived plan to make Tony Blair President of Europe and ended with Britain having none of the key economic portfolios. Indeed, the Government became so dysfunctional that at one stage Peter Mandelson tried to land himself the job of High Representative. The Prime Minister shakes his head, but perhaps he should just nod. Did Lord Mandelson try to get the job? Is there anybody in there? He was frantically hitting the phones, apparently-the rat was trying to leave the sinking ship, but he is still on board.
	Friends of Lord Mandelson, which always used to mean Peter Mandelson himself, said that he thought the whole thing not pathetic, but "botched". That was his word. Is that not the right description for the Prime Minister's handling of this affair?
	On financial services, cross-border co-operation is clearly vital. However, will the Prime Minister confirm that Britain has effectively given up its veto on blocking regulatory decisions in times of crisis when there is a disagreement over whether there are financial consequences for the taxpayer? He did not mention that in his statement-perhaps he can answer it when he has finished chuntering from a sedentary position.
	The summit conclusions also called for the restoration of sound public finances. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he ever expected to come back from a European summit as Prime Minister after 12 years' stewardship of Britain's finances with the biggest deficit of any major economy, with Britain the only G20 country still mired in recession and with the worst outlook for public finances in a generation? Is that what he meant by leading the way in Europe?

Gordon Brown: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman spent most of his time raising issues that were not even discussed at the European Council. It would have been better if he had addressed in a bit more detail all the issues that I put to the House this afternoon.
	The first issue was those matters that relate to Afghanistan. It is very important to recognise that there is all-party agreement on these matters and not to exaggerate any differences between us at this particularly sensitive time, when more troops are going into Afghanistan, when we are persuading the Afghan forces to increase their numbers in Helmand province, and when we are trying to extend civilian and military co-operation so that we can tackle the Taliban insurgency effectively by weakening them and strengthening the Afghan state.
	I said to the right hon. Gentleman that we were increasing our presence in Helmand, but so, too, is the American presence in Helmand increasing. The number of troops in Helmand will go up from something in the order of 20,000 to 30,000 over the next few months. That will include, of course, the Afghan army's making a bigger contribution in Helmand. Over time, the balance will change between the alliance forces-if I can put it that way-and the Afghan forces. By 2011, across the whole of Afghanistan, the Afghan forces will exceed the alliance forces. On top of that, we have the Afghan police numbers, too. That is our policy for the gradual Afghanisation of security control. In that way, district by district and province by province, we can transfer to Afghan control. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that when I met the Afghan forces in Helmand yesterday, who were training on anti-explosive devices, those whom I talked to came from all different parts of the country to Helmand, both to be trained and to form part of a more effective army for the whole of Afghanistan in the long run.
	I said that we were proposing that humanitarian and civilian issues related to the co-ordination of the effort of Afghanistan were to be a main feature of the London conference. Now that Mr. Kai Eide has resigned as the UN representative-I believe that he will stay on until March, but he is retiring after that-we will, in my view, have to appoint both a representative from ISAF and one from NATO. I talked about this to the Secretary-General of NATO this afternoon. There will be a UN appointment and there will also be a NATO appointment. It is important to recognise that all these interests must be represented, but there must be greater co-ordination at the centre.
	As far as Afghanistan in general is concerned, I hope that Members of the House will feel that the measures that we are taking to deal with IEDs are important in protecting our troops and in destroying the morale of the Taliban. I have to say that when I was in Afghanistan yesterday, it was reported to me that 1,500 IEDs had been detected and dismantled through the expertise of our forces and, in particular, that of the engineers, who do such important work. If we can continue to defuse and dismantle, and therefore disable, these IEDs, we can reduce the rate of casualties that we have suffered over the past year-80 per cent. of casualties throughout Afghanistan and among British forces are due to IEDs. It is therefore absolutely essential that we take all the measures that I announced today to increase our effort to deal with them.
	I turn now to Iran. It is true that we have been at the forefront of proposing sanctions on Iran, but it is also true that taking unilateral action without getting European support and the support of the rest of the world would not yield the impact that we want. We are working with our European partners and with the rest of the international community so that the agreed and unanimous approach to what Iran has done can yield practical results in sanctions that actually work.
	The right hon. Gentleman also raised issues regarding the European Council. At the Council, we discussed a timetable for resolving budget issues, we discussed economic co-operation across Europe and we discussed the fiscal stimulus that has been necessary to bring the economy forward and to move economies out of recession. I have to tell him that there are 12 European economies still in recession and that a number of economies, including Germany, have suffered a far worse recession than we have. We have the highest employment rate in the G7, and unemployment here is lower than in most other countries that are comparable to us, as a result of the action that we have taken. I have to say to the Conservatives that there is agreement at the European Council that we needed fiscal stimulus so that the economy could move forward, agreement that we should have taken action to restructure the banks, agreement that the fiscal stimulus should continue, and agreement that we must all take action against unemployment and to help small businesses in these difficulties by providing Government funds. The only group that seems to stand outside that agreement within Europe and the rest of the world is the Conservative party that is represented on the Opposition Benches.
	On climate change, it is incredibly important that the voice of this House, from all parties in the House, says that we want developing and developed countries to work together to secure an agreement. That is why our offer of support is right if we are to get an agreement that shows developing countries that we mean business in tackling the issues that they face most of all as a result of climate change. That is why we were the leaders in a European agreement that has ensured that very substantial funds-about $3.5 billion a year-will go to helping developing countries adapt to and mitigate climate change, including through action on forestry. But we have a great deal of work still to do, because we have to get an agreement about the longer term as well as the short term. We have to get an agreement about intermediate targets and about transparency in all the issues that we undertake. I think that we in Britain have led the way with a climate change Act, and we have led the way with an announcement that we will be active in providing long-term finance to help developing countries. We have suggested a figure of $10 billion as a fast-track initiative for both the European Union and the rest of the world to follow, and there is now virtual agreement on that.
	We will continue to press for a just and fair settlement at Copenhagen. The reason why I want to go there tomorrow is to talk to all the parties about what we can do together. The reason why I think the Opposition should support Britain's being present is that we have led the way on the millennium development goals, we have led the way on debt relief, we have led the way on international economic co-operation, we have led the way on the restructuring of the banks and we are leading the way on climate change-something the Opposition could never do.

Nicholas Clegg: I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and of course to add my expressions of gratitude to our armed forces who are serving so bravely and selflessly in Afghanistan. With families across the country preparing to come together for the Christmas holidays, may I also pay tribute to the families and friends of our servicemen and women? The enormous sacrifices they are also making for this war are uppermost in all our minds at this time of year.
	I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his detailed statement on Afghanistan, but I should like to seek clarity on two points. First, will he clarify what he believes to be the role of China, Russia and Iran? Whether we like it or not, those nations are absolutely crucial in securing long-term stability in Afghanistan. I was not quite sure, from what he said, whether any or all three of those nations will be represented at the London conference. If they will not, will he provide us with some detail about how we might engage with all three of them to help to stabilise Afghanistan, notwithstanding the other major differences that we have, particularly with Iran at this particular time?
	The second point is this. We all know that the war in Afghanistan will be won only if we win the battle for the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. In turn, that is heavily dependent on the legitimacy of President Karzai and his Government in Kabul. The Prime Minister referred to President Karzai's efforts against corruption, but could he tell me how exactly he will judge progress on good governance and against corruption in Afghanistan by the time President Karzai comes to the London conference in January?
	Given that the resources allocated and the strategy we have been pursuing in Afghanistan during the past eight years were so heavily influenced by the war in Iraq, I should like to know what the Prime Minister thought of his predecessor's admission this weekend that he would have invaded Iraq whether there were weapons of mass destruction or not. The Prime Minister not only supported his then boss in taking us to war, but he also signed all the cheques, so people have a right to know: does the Prime Minister agree with Tony Blair that the invasion would have been justified even without the paper-thin excuse of weapons of mass destruction?
	Finally, on climate change, a few hours ago we heard that the talks in Copenhagen were suspended-although I am told that they restarted a few minutes ago-because of differences in the international community between the developing and developed world. I am sure the Prime Minister agrees that the "I will if you will" brinkmanship needs to come to an end. Too many players are making their commitments conditional on the commitments of others, so will the Prime Minister make a unilateral commitment to help break that deadlock? The Committee on Climate Change said that to meet the European Union target of 30 per cent. cuts on 1990 levels by 2020, the UK would need to cut its emissions by 42 per cent. by 2020. The Prime Minister does not need to wait for anyone else to make that commitment. Will he make it today?

Gordon Brown: First, let me deal with Afghanistan. It is right that at a conference discussing Afghanistan, not only the coalition partners should be present but so too should regional neighbours, and that is our intention. It is very important to recognise that in the longer term Afghanistan's future is dependent on both non-interference by its immediate neighbours and economic and cultural co-operation between Afghanistan and its neighbours. We will do what we can to advance that process-difficult though it has been to get some of the neighbours even to talk to each other. That is part of the discussion that will take place at the conference. There will be discussion too of the role of Pakistan, because if action can be taken on both sides of the border against al-Qaeda and against the Taliban, we have a better chance of succeeding in our objectives in Afghanistan.
	When President Karzai comes to London, we will expect him to be able to show progress on the anti-corruption laws he is proposing and the anti-corruption taskforce he has set up. Last week, there were 12 arrests for corruption. Obviously, people will look at the appointment of his Cabinet and the appointment of district and provincial governors, and at what they say. He is holding a conference on those very issues in Kabul tomorrow, and I hope that will show the determination to make progress. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that President Karzai is determined to come to London with a plan to deal with some of the problems in Afghanistan that have been intractable over many years.
	As for Iraq, there is an inquiry sitting. The inquiry will hear evidence and then make its report.
	As far as climate change is concerned, there is a European offer of 20 per cent., to go to 30 per cent. if we can get an ambitious settlement-where other countries join in going to the ambitious ranges they have set. If Japan, Australia and Brazil, with their very ambitious ranges, and South Korea can go further, and if we can see the movement we want from other partners in the negotiation, our wish is to go 30 per cent. But we will have to get not only intermediate targets agreed with other countries and statements about national emission plans from the developing countries, but also, as I have said before, financial agreement and technology exchange agreements. Verification issues will be raised as well, so there is a lot of work still to be done at Copenhagen. I know that the right hon. Gentleman wants the most ambitious agreement possible and I am grateful for the support he will give us in these efforts.

Mike Gapes: The Prime Minister referred to Pakistan. He knows of the great sacrifices being made by the civilian population and the military in Pakistan in fighting extremism. Did he discuss with President Karzai the importance of effective co-operation between Afghanistan and Pakistan, particularly in combating extremism in the Pashtun areas on both sides of the Durand line?

Gordon Brown: As my hon. Friend, who is an expert on these affairs, will know, we wish to work with the Pakistan Government, not simply for them to deal with the problem of the Pakistan Taliban, as they have done in the Swat territory and equally in Waziristan. We want to work with them to deal with those areas where there were problems also with the Afghan Taliban based in Pakistan, so we want to see the maximum co-operation between President Karzai and the Pakistani authorities, including President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani, and we want to see more effective co-operation between the armed forces of both countries so that in the end we can have joint measures that will protect the border areas. Co-operation between Afghanistan and Pakistan will be very much more important in future years. I am grateful that we have the present level of co-operation with Pakistan on the issues that I raised in my statement, but we want to see further co-operation on security issues strengthened in the months to come.

James Arbuthnot: It is good to hear that our troops in Afghanistan are getting more mine-clearing equipment, but at the expense of what? A recent review set up by the former Secretary of State for Defence says that the defence equipment programme is unaffordable. Is that right?

Gordon Brown: We have increased defence spending every year. There is £1 billion more being spent on defence this year, and we have given real-terms rises to defence of nearly 10 per cent. over the past 10 years. In addition to that, we have provided for the equipment needs and the other additional needs associated with the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is because we announced additional money from the Treasury reserve to pay for new equipment that the Mastiffs and the Ridgbacks are going into Afghanistan as vehicles, additional helicopters were able to go to Afghanistan, and the anti-IED commitment is being provided. We have met all the requirements of our military forces on the ground to enable them to mount their campaigns in Afghanistan. I am sorry that Conservative Members are trying to dispute that, when the fact of the matter is that all urgent operational requirements of the Ministry of Defence have been met and will continue to be met.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Speaker: Order. A further 26 right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. As usual, I should like to be able to accommodate everybody, but in order for me to do so, short questions and short answers will be required.

Ann Clwyd: I met a delegation of Afghan MPs in Geneva a few weeks ago. They are extremely grateful for the efforts being made by this country on their behalf. However, one woman in the delegation-I cannot say publicly what she told me in private-said that women are still extremely vulnerable in that country. I have raised the matter in the Chamber several times in the past. The UN has criticised the Afghan Government for not doing enough to protect women. This woman is in danger. Will the Prime Minister raise the matter-the situation of women-during the Afghan conference in London in January? That was one of the reasons why we went in to help Afghanistan.

Gordon Brown: My right hon. Friend is right. We made representations about the Shi'a family law that was discussed in the summer. The President ensured that some of the discriminatory parts of that were removed as a result of international pressure, as well as that of people in his own country, including women, urging that he change the position. I realise that the rights of women in Afghanistan are an issue that we must promote at all times when we are discussing the future of Afghanistan.
	It is true that as a result of what has happened over the past few years, whereas no girls went to school, there are now 2.5 million girls at school. For the future of Afghanistan, that is a vital change that is happening. Increasing the numbers of children at school, including girls, is a vital part of the programme. At the same time, maternal mortality was among the worst in the world. I understand that one in eight births ended in the death of the mother as a result of the inadequate facilities. I am told that recent research suggests that 100,000 children are now surviving to the age of five who would otherwise not have done so, as a result of the improvements in tackling infant mortality and child health. These achievements are a result of bringing health and education to the people of Afghanistan. My right hon. Friend is right: we must never forget the importance of these issues-the social and economic improvement of the condition of the population-when we are talking about the future of Afghanistan.

Robert Key: The Prime Minister's announcement of an additional £50 million for three years on counter-IED and intelligence work is very welcome. Will that money come as an urgent operational requirement from the Treasury, or will it come from within the existing defence budget?

Gordon Brown: The Chancellor reported in the pre-Budget report that expenditure on Afghanistan from the reserve was something in the order of £600 million three years ago. It will be almost £4.5 billion in the next two years. That is as a result of additional money made available by the Treasury.

Paul Flynn: Very recently, seven Taliban attacked a convoy that was being protected by 300 members of the Afghan army. Almost all those 300 fled the scene immediately, and one of their generals said that they have no motivation to risk their lives for an election-rigging President, for their own country or for the international community. The Afghan police are a lawless bunch of depraved thieves. Does the Prime Minister really believe that we can build a solid security service on those collapsing foundations?

Gordon Brown: There are two views we can take about Afghanistan, and my hon. Friend takes a different one from mine. The first view is that the Taliban have a huge amount of support in Afghanistan and the Afghan people will not resist them. The second view, however, is the one I take-that the Taliban have very limited public support from the people of Afghanistan. All opinion polls show, and all the evidence that we have is, that the public do not want the Taliban to return in Afghanistan. The public know the damage that the Taliban did in the past; they know the threat to women's rights; they know the damage that was done to children's education; and they know the justice that the Taliban meted out unfairly, particularly against women. Our best estimate is that the people of Afghanistan, by a very substantial majority, do not want the Taliban to return to government. The people want to be assured that there is security, guaranteed by Afghan forces and by the alliance forces working together. Over time, they will want to see security kept by the Afghan army, Afghan police and Afghan security services, and that is what our strategy, which we have proposed for some time, is working towards. I do not accept my hon. Friend's initial premise that the Taliban have anything like the support that he suggests.

Bernard Jenkin: May I ask the Prime Minister, is it a responsible policy to fund at least part of the cost of current operations by raiding future defence capability?

Gordon Brown: I think the hon. Gentleman has got to understand that the total amount of additional public expenditure-on top of the defence budget-in Iraq and Afghanistan is £14 billion. That is on top of the defence budget; that is additional to a rising defence budget. I think he has got to understand also the scale of the investment that we have made in equipment, which is in the order of £5 billion. He should look at the overall amount of money that has been invested in Afghanistan, including £1 billion alone in new equipment for vehicles, as well as the extra investment in helicopters and IED equipment. The total sum for equipment is £5 billion, much of it spent in the past two years to make for better vehicles. In the Chancellor's pre-Budget report we have allocated, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in the reserve sufficient funds for Afghanistan in the coming year. I do not think his criticism of us should be that we have spent too little on or invested too little in the safety of our forces. We have done whatever is necessary.

Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the whole House will be much encouraged by his trip to Afghanistan, in particular his direct conversations with President Karzai? The number of troops being committed is very encouraging, but the quality, as my right hon. Friend knows, will be very important too. That will depend on provincial governments, so could we see a start by President Karzai on some reorganisation of the Kandahar provincial government, which is so central to the problems associated with corruption?

Gordon Brown: I talked to President Karzai about the governorships of Kandahar and Helmand, and about the appointments that he will make to his Cabinet in the next few days. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is the quality of local government on the ground, the quality of the Afghan army and, particularly over time, the quality of the police in Afghanistan that will be so vital to success in the future. But what I saw yesterday was Afghan recruits training, at a high level of demand from the British trainers, and acquitting themselves well. What I have also seen in Governor Mangal in Helmand is a governor who can show that you can get resources directly to the people and build up a system of law. Wherever that is not happening, action should be taken, and we will give our views directly to President Karzai.

Anne Main: The Prime Minister did not answer the leader of the Liberal Democrats on the case for going to war in Iraq on the grounds that it would be inappropriate because an inquiry on that is being held at the moment. Does he believe, then, that his Defence Secretary's remarks on condemning going to war without giving correct proof were inappropriate?

Gordon Brown: I did not answer the question because this is a statement on the European Council and on Afghanistan and Pakistan, and an inquiry has been set up to look at all the issues affecting Iraq.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Prime Minister is well aware that all wars have to end with some kind of political settlement or negotiation. We are now in our ninth year of this war in Afghanistan; billions have been spent and thousands of lives have been lost. At what point does he envisage some kind of political engagement with those people in Afghanistan who are not supporters of Karzai and his corrupt Government, but who want some other solution?

Gordon Brown: I think my hon. Friend draws the wrong conclusions in his remarks. Britain cannot be safe from terrorism unless we deal with problems that exist not just in Britain but on the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan. If we do not take on al-Qaeda and prevent it from having space in Afghanistan, with the freedom of movement to plan operations in Britain, then we will be failing in our duty to the security of the people he represents in London and people in the rest of the country, who have had to suffer from terrorist plots that have been organised from the Afghan-Pakistan border. Yes, it is right that Afghanistan is an infant democracy where problems existed in a very big way during the election campaign, but it is better for us to build Afghan forces that are under an Afghan democracy, to build up security services that are under an Afghan President who is elected by the people, and to build up local government in Afghanistan than to give up and allow the people who never wanted us to take the action that was necessary to win this argument. This is about the security of the people of Britain.

Andrew Robathan: The Prime Minister has rightly praised our brave troops in Afghanistan, who include my former regiment, the Coldstream Guards. He said that he would provide more equipment and support for the armed forces. The armed forces do not operate only in Afghanistan, so can he reassure the House that the future defence budget will be fully funded and explain who was responsible for the chronic deficit and underfunding in defence that has occurred over a number of years and is highlighted in a devastating report by the National Audit Office? Sadly, it is embargoed until midnight tonight; otherwise, I would quote from it.

Gordon Brown: The time when the defence budget was cut massively was under the Conservative Government between 1992 and 1997. Defence expenditure has risen in real terms by 10 per cent. since 1997. I keep repeating to the hon. Gentleman that the urgent operational requirements of our defence forces when they are in action abroad, as they have been in Iraq and Afghanistan, are met by separate claims from the reserves. I think he should look at the arithmetic of what has actually happened, and he will see that extra urgent operational requirements have always been met by the Treasury. I really do think it is unfortunate, when he can see the additional resources that have been made available, the reserve claims that have been paid and the urgent operational requirements that have been met, for him to try to tell the British people that our armed forces have not got the equipment they need. They have the equipment for the job they are doing.

Meg Munn: Pacific island states are already suffering significant effects from global warming. They have produced national adaptation plans, but do not have the money to implement them. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that money is available from the EU funds for this adaptation now, as without it the implications of global warming will only continue to get worse for those islands?

Gordon Brown: I know from my hon. Friend's work that she knows very well the challenges that are faced by the island states. She also knows some of the countries that were present at the Commonwealth conference because she has very strong links with them. I know perfectly well that countries from the Maldives to Bangladesh look to the climate change conference in Copenhagen to give answers to the problems they face as a result of immediate and urgent requirements owing to climate change. The purpose of the European contribution-$3.5 billion a year in 2010, 2011 and 2012-is to contribute to a worldwide fund of something in the order of $10 billion a year, principally for the expenditure on adaptation that she wishes to see. There is a proposal that the island states that have suffered most of all will get a proportion of that fund to enable them to take action immediately. We know very well that some of the problems they face are urgent and have to be addressed not just in the next few years but in the next few months.

Robert Smith: Does the Prime Minister recognise that he does not need an inquiry to know that his "thank you" to the British troops would be all the stronger if it contained an apology, to them and to the people of Afghanistan, for the failure to resource the war there properly in the early years because of the folly of going to war in Iraq on a false prospectus?

Gordon Brown: I am sorry that the Liberal party is trying to follow the Conservative party in subscribing to a myth that the Afghan campaign has been underfunded. That is totally wrong, and I hope that in the interests of the unity of our country in facing the terrorist threat, the Conservative party and the Liberal party will recognise that we are spending more on our armed forces and on meeting urgent operational requirements than we ever did.
	We have taken the view, which I believe is held by the vast majority of the British people, that we cannot defend Britain against terrorism simply through the extra money that we are spending on security and police forces within our borders. We cannot operate a "fortress Britain" strategy when we have problems arising in Pakistan and Afghanistan that bring terrorist plots to London and our country from their bases there. It was right to take the action that we did, which has been and will continue to be properly funded. If the Opposition continue to perpetuate the myth that inadequate funding is being provided for our armed forces, the public will lose support for the effort that we are making, which would be a very unfortunate outcome.

Nigel Griffiths: Does the Prime Minister accept the wide welcome for the additional money going to climate change measures in developing countries, on top of the 0.7 per cent. commitment? Does he also accept that anyone who believed that there would be a full, legally binding agreement on climate change this week clearly comes very late to the subject and would be better off persuading his sister parties on the fringe in Europe to stop opposing climate change legislation?

Gordon Brown: I tend to think that the Conservatives are better at the photo opportunities than at policy on these issues. They have made no commitment at all to additionality when it comes to climate change, and they seem to treat the climate change debate as a joke. It is a serious matter, and we are going to bring it to a conclusion.

Julian Brazier: Will the Prime Minister accept that the Afghan police have not made the same progress as the Afghan army? Given that five members of our Army have just paid with their lives because of a police incident, does he accept that it would be irresponsible to accelerate their recruiting, vetting and training?

Gordon Brown: The tragic incident in which five of our soldiers lost their lives must be properly investigated, and we must get all the answers. That is right for the families, but it is also right for the future of co-operation between the Afghan police and military and the British police and military. On the ground in Afghanistan, our troops are working day by day with Afghan forces. They are working in joint exercises with the Afghan police and military, and we would be making a grave mistake if we simply stayed with the status quo and did not move forward the partnering with them. The scaling up of that partnering, which has been agreed as a result of the recommendations of General McChrystal-we advocated it months before that, and President Obama is now putting resources into it-is the right way forward for Afghanistan. The other strategies, including the one that the hon. Gentleman proposes, would leave us at a standstill and not getting the progress that we need so that Afghan forces can take direct control of their own security over time.

Gisela Stuart: The European Council discussed economic co-operation. Were there any specific discussions about what to do if the economies of Greece in particular, but also Ireland, Spain and Portugal, continue to deteriorate?

Gordon Brown: It is the intention of the European Union to maintain the fiscal stimulus and show that we have deficit reduction plans for the future, and it is the intention of each of the countries of the EU to show that they have deficit reduction plans as well as a commitment to protect themselves against the recession. That was the basis of discussion at the European Union.

Tony Baldry: My nephew has just returned from a six-month tour in Helmand with the Royal Engineers. He tells me that it was particularly frustrating that they would spend all day detecting and disarming improvised explosive devices and return to base at night, only for the Taliban to come out during the hours of darkness to re-seed the fields with such devices. If there is not going to be a curfew at night, the Afghan army or police or someone has to secure the ground, because all that is happening at night is that the Taliban are taking back the ground that engineers and others have spent all day retaking, at risk to their own lives.

Gordon Brown: I appreciate that difficulty. If the hon. Gentleman has specific information that he wants people to look at, I will be happy to look at it myself and pass it on. However, the truth of the matter is that there is enhanced surveillance of what is happening on the ground. Where there is change in the land during the course of a week or a day, we are in many cases able to detect it. Important security work is therefore being done to make sure that where IEDs are planted, we have more information about them and the people planting them. I agree that that has been a problem, but I think that we have better security measures than we had before.

David Cairns: Did my right hon. Friend get the opportunity to witness first hand the tremendous contribution to the mission in Afghanistan being made by the Royal Navy, in what is often seen as an Army campaign? Does he agree that any suggestion that the budget of the Royal Navy could be cut without hindering either the mission in Afghanistan or our other vital global interests is just plain wrong?

Gordon Brown: I met members of the Royal Navy in Helmand and Afghanistan yesterday. Their work with Sea King helicopters is of course incredibly important in Afghanistan, but many people from the Royal Navy are working with our troops in Afghanistan and doing an incredible job. Our commitment to the Navy is shown by our decision on the aircraft carrier.

Bob Russell: I was in Camp Bastion in September last year, just after 2,000 British troops, including many from 16 Air Assault Brigade, delivered a turbine to the Kajaki dam, which was a daring and dangerous mission. Fifteen months later, that turbine has yet to be installed, because the other equipment needed cannot be taken there because of the dangers. Bearing in mind the Prime Minister's promise that he was going to get more European nations involved, and with the additional aerial surveillance, will he get them to secure that road so that the battle of hearts and minds can be won?

Gordon Brown: I would not like the hon. Gentleman to give the wrong impression. Two generators are there, but the third has not been brought into use. The decision has been made that diesel-powered, local generation is a better way forward to meet the gap in electricity power that exists in that area. As far as my meetings yesterday with people in Afghanistan are concerned, the extra work that we will do on economic development, which is giving people a stake in the future, will include not only building roads, as we have done, but giving farmers the opportunity to benefit from the wheat harvest and to grow wheat. I think that that will help around 40,000 farmers in the Helmand area over the next year.

Tony Lloyd: At the European Union Council meeting, did the Prime Minister meet many Heads of Government who thought that the recovery was now so secure that it was the right time to bring in swingeing and savage cuts?

Gordon Brown: Every member of the European Union present wanted to maintain the fiscal stimulus and said that it should be maintained until the recovery was assured. Only the Conservative party is so arrogant to believe that it knows better than almost every country in the world and every political leadership, whether of the right or left, around the world. The answer, of course, is that if they had the Conservative policy, there would be more unemployment, more small businesses going to the wall, more people losing their homes, and a higher deficit and higher debt.

Hugo Swire: While we should salute the work being done by the Pakistani army, not least its special forces, it remains the case that a large proportion of it is deployed along Pakistan's border with India. Those troops would be better employed going after the Afghan Taliban in Pakistan. What discussions has the Prime Minister had with either the Government of Pakistan or the Pakistani military to encourage them to redeploy more of their forces?

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman will know that a very substantial number of the Pakistani armed forces have been operating in the Swat valley and that about 30,000 of the Pakistani forces have been, and are, in Waziristan, taking on the Pakistan Taliban there. There has therefore been a considerable change in the amount of effort that the Pakistan authorities are making in tackling the terrorist threat within their own country. However, I agree with him that, if the relationship between Pakistan and India were less tense, with less need for troops on both sides of the border, Pakistan could do more to tackle the terrorist threat within its own borders. That requires India and Pakistan to work more closely together. We are determined to see what we can do to make that possible. I have talked to both Prime Minister Singh and President Zardari about that. If we can get a closer working relationship between India and Pakistan, even after the horror of the Mumbai bombings, it would greatly help the campaign against the Taliban and against al-Qaeda in Pakistan.

Betty Williams: I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer earlier about the plight of the south Pacific islands. We visited five of those islands-Fiji, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Tonga and Kiribati-during the summer recess as part of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The Speaker of Tuvalu said to me, as I left for the plane, "Thank you so much for coming and for thinking about us. Please do not forget us." That is the message that I would like to give to my right hon. Friend as he goes to Copenhagen.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend has taken a long-term interest in the problems faced by those island states, where we could be dealing with climate change refugees and evacuees in the not too distant future. Copenhagen is important, because it can allow us to make a commitment to help immediately those island states that are facing these immense difficulties, and help them to obtain support to deal with the adaptation necessary. We will not forget the challenges faced by these islands. Many of them are part of the Commonwealth and it is important that we come to their aid when they are in need.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Why was the Prime Minister's statement completely silent on the Council agreements on a tangible EU citizenship, a single EU judicial space, an internal security system and what it calls a common asylum system by 2012? As Labour Ministers argued against all those policies during the negotiations on the Lisbon treaty, as I saw for myself on the European Convention, does the Prime Minister regret having to support them now and pretend that he was always in favour of them?

Gordon Brown: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has moved on since he was at the European Convention. He does not realise that we secured all our red lines on these issues when we negotiated the treaty. He has forgotten that the constitutional concept-the original plan for the Convention-was abandoned and we have a treaty that now meets the interests of the British people, so much so that the Conservative party has abandoned its long-held policy and has decided that it does not want a referendum on the treaty any more. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman supports his party.

Jim Cunningham: In relation to Copenhagen and climatic change, can the Prime Minister say whether China and India will play a major part in any negotiations or agreement reached in Copenhagen? There seem to be some doubts about China's position.

Gordon Brown: China and India must be central to an agreement in Copenhagen. As we know, one of the great problems of the previous Kyoto agreement was the number of countries not involved in it. It is crucial that China plays its part in the negotiations. It is one of the biggest emitters, if not now the biggest. It is also crucial that India, which is also growing fast, plays its part in the negotiations. I will meet Premier Wen and, I hope, talk to Prime Minister Singh in the next few days. We will try to work together to secure the necessary agreement.

Crispin Blunt: The Prime Minister has explained that there will shortly be 30,000 allied troops in Helmand province. When the Helmand operation began, there were 3,000 British troops funded to 60 per cent. per head, compared to 10,000 British troops there today. Who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 2006 and what lessons have been learnt?

Gordon Brown: The number of troops in Afghanistan has risen substantially, but the equipment available to those troops has also risen substantially as the needs of fighting a guerrilla war against the Taliban have had to be met. I say to the Conservative party that it is making a huge mistake if it believes that it can persuade the British people, and that it is in the interests of the British people that they be persuaded, that our troops are underfunded and not properly equipped. That campaign was run by certain Conservatives over the summer. It does huge damage to public support for the operation.
	Everybody here knows that our troops have had substantial additional funding from the Treasury, that the vehicles available to them are far more sophisticated than before, that the helicopter support is available and that we are bringing in the best counter-IED support to deal with a new threat that has been posed by the Taliban. I hope that the Conservative party will rethink that position, which I believe will damage public support for this exercise.

Keith Vaz: I welcome the Prime Minister's visit, and indeed that made last week by the Leader of the Opposition. I am sure that those visits gave a lot of comfort and support to our troops. May we also show some comfort and support for the Afghanis who seek to claim asylum in this country? Is it really right that we should remove people to a country that is so patently unsafe?

Gordon Brown: Every application for asylum is looked at on its merits and dealt with on its merits. My right hon. Friend knows that as Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. That is the position of the Government and it will continue to be our position.

Angus Robertson: Thousands of service families, including those at RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Kinloss, are reading reports of planned base closures and defence cuts. Why is the Prime Minister not being up front about his preference for conventional defence cuts, rather than scrapping the Trident nuclear programme, which would save £100 billion?

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman knows that scrapping the Trident programme would lose hundreds-indeed, a great many-of jobs in Scotland as well. If his issue is jobs he should know that we have funded the aircraft carriers, which are being built partly in Scotland. We have increased the defence budget every year. We have also, of course, increased the urgent operational requirements for our Air Force, as well as our Navy and Army. When he looks at the record of enhanced expenditure and investment in our armed forces, both in Scotland and in the rest of the UK, he will know that the Government are doing their job.

David Anderson: I thank the Prime Minister for the tremendous support he has given to my early-day motion 1396, from last year, on the so-called Tobin tax-an example of how the few can be made to help the many. Will he also support a new early-day motion on the same lines, about an Ashcroft tax?

Gordon Brown: It is very strange that the Conservative party automatically-almost without thinking about it-came out against a global financial transaction tax. Such a tax is now being discussed in all countries in Europe and investigated by the International Monetary Fund, and the EU is to produce a report on it. Certain people around the world who are esteemed in the academic profession as economists are supporting this, but, as a reflex action, the Conservative party is against it. The Conservatives are interested in one form of tax-that is, tax avoidance. It is about time we heard whether the deputy chairman of the Conservative party, after 10 years, has honoured his promise to pay tax in the UK.

Tobias Ellwood: Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to our armed forces, not just those in combat roles, but those doing humanitarian work in areas where the international development agencies cannot operate-building bridges, building schools and so forth? Does that good work count towards the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product?

Gordon Brown: If it is international aid that is helping underdeveloped and low-income countries, it is possible that it will count. That is the right thing to happen. The purpose of overseas development aid is to help the poorest of the world and allow them-through better provision for health and education, and through economic development-to raise their living standards and to take themselves out of poverty. The achievement of international development aid and all work done with developing countries will be that many millions more people are taken out of poverty.

Peter Bone: Next year, the UK will pay £4 billion more to the EU than it did last year. In the pre-Budget report, the Chancellor announced a tax on jobs. That will raise £3.1 billion. Is it surprising that people in this country are fed up with giving money to the EU, rather than protecting front-line services here?

Gordon Brown: We are part of a European Union of 27 members. I know that many people on the Opposition Benches do not like that fact, but one of the responsibilities of membership is that we provide resources for all members of the European Union, depending on our ability to pay. That is in the agreements that have been negotiated, and these agreements are in the interest of a country that trades 60 per cent. of its goods with the European Union, has 3 million jobs dependent on the European Union and has 750,000 companies that are involved with the European Union. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to indulge the anti-Europeanism of the Tory party, then let him do it, but I believe that the whole of the British nation sees the importance of our relationship with Europe.

Bob Spink: Can the Prime Minister say whether we are training Afghans in bomb disposal and the use of robotics and other equipment to deal with IEDs, and whether, as we start to draw down and withdraw, we will leave the Afghans with the necessary equipment to do that job?

Gordon Brown: Yesterday I saw our British forces training the Afghan forces in the hand-held equipment that is necessary to detect IEDs. Most of the work that we are doing on IEDs with robotic equipment is done by British forces, but over time it must be our aim to train the Afghan forces, so that they can take responsibility for the security of those districts and provinces. That, I believe, is the proper strategy for Afghanistan, andI hope that there will be all-party support for it.

David Burrowes: Given the disclosure today of documents confirming that Iran has taken great strides in developing its nuclear weapon capability, is it not the reality that while the international community, and in particular the European Union, dithers, Israel, sooner rather than later, will feel compelled to repel the direct threat to its existence?

Gordon Brown: I think that the hon. Gentleman should reflect on the fact that the international community is attempting to show unity in the face of Iran. We are attempting to work with China and Russia, as well as with the other powers, to deal with what is a clear threat. The message to Iran must be, "Join the international community and renounce nuclear weapons, or face isolation from the international community", with the potential for sanctions if the Iranians do not, and it is a stronger message when put by all countries together.

Philip Hollobone: With the United Kingdom sending more troops to Afghanistan than France and Germany combined, does the Prime Minister understand the concerns of my constituents that, while this country is fulfilling its responsibilities, others among our major European partners are not?

Gordon Brown: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is right for us to do more in Afghanistan, and we are doing our best to contribute to the forces. I hope that the implication of his question is not that if France and Germany do not come up with the numbers, we should do less. I do not think that that is the case. What I believe should happen is that all countries in the alliance should look at what they can do and whether they can contribute more. Not just eight countries, which was the initial number of countries following us that I announced to the House a few weeks ago, but 38 countries are offering their help in Afghanistan as part of NATO and the coalition. We should welcome the fact that many countries are doing so. Announcements have yet to come from other countries, and I believe that they will come from some of them over the next weeks or months.
	Let me repeat, so that everybody is clear about the money that we are spending on the equipment of our forces, that the Chief of the Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, said:
	"The equipment...people are using is...the best that they've ever had".
	I hope that the Conservative party will listen to that and follow his advice on that matter.

Personal Care at Home Bill

Second Reading

Andy Burnham: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	This is a significant moment for the House, as it means that the long overdue reform of the funding of personal and social care in England is at last under way. Before we go any further, it is important to focus our minds on the people whom the Bill is intended to help. It will provide support to more than 400,000 of the most vulnerable people in our constituencies, including people with advanced conditions such as Parkinson's, dementia, Alzheimer's and motor neurone disease. They are people with the greatest needs, who require intimate personal care in all aspects of their daily lives. In many cases, they will already have paid significant sums out of their own pocket towards the costs of their care as their condition has deteriorated. Their families and carers will have faced considerable pressure in recent times as they have battled to get the help that they need, or sought to balance the demands of their own lives with looking after a loved one. Therefore, today, we are rightly focusing on those with the greatest needs, and on making their lives and the lives of their families and carers a bit easier.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way so early in his speech, but I must ask him why we are debating this Bill now, when we are in the middle of a consultation and waiting for clarification on what is going to happen with the National Care Service in England. Are we not jumping the gun a little by introducing just one part of a much grander scheme, which would be better debated as a whole?

Andy Burnham: The Green Paper has kicked off a long overdue debate about the funding of social care in England, but it is our judgment that we do not need to wait for the conclusions of the review before making the system fairer-

Tobias Ellwood: Then why have it?

Andy Burnham: We want to make the system fairer now for people in our communities with the greatest needs, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will endorse that as a laudable objective.

Bob Spink: To make this excellent Bill work better, we need to ensure that we can fund adaptations to homes-such as adapting baths to showers and installing stair lifts-quickly. Will the Secretary of State meet me and representatives of the Royal British Legion and the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association to discuss the problems involved in getting this through, to ensure that the people who need those adaptations do not have to wait months and years for them, and that there is no discrimination between privately owned and publicly owned housing?

Andy Burnham: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kind words about the Bill. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), would certainly be happy to have the meeting that he has requested. In a moment, I will talk specifically about help in the home and about spending on the adaptations and technology that might help people to live at home. Too often, there has been a divide over spending health resources in that way, and the Bill seeks to change that. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said.
	In addition to helping those who need care at home, the Bill will help those who are at a low point in their lives and at risk of needing long-term care-for example, people who have recently had a fall, an accident, a serious operation or a bereavement.

Norman Lamb: The Secretary of State mentioned that the provisions would benefit 400,000 people. The risk assessment that comes with the Bill makes it clear, however, that if we take those already getting reablement provision out of the equation, only 100,000 extra people will benefit from free personal care through the Bill. Does he agree that that is the correct figure, rather than 400,000, because the vast majority are already receiving help through the means-tested system?

Andy Burnham: In a moment, I will break down the precise figures on those who will benefit from the Bill. On reablement, it is important to say that these provisions will fund an expansion of reablement services, and we estimate that an extra 130,000 people will be helped through the use of a more preventive approach to social care, and a more intensive period of support when they are at a low point in their lives. I will come to the figures that the hon. Gentleman has raised in a moment, and show him that the 400,000 figure is a real one.
	The Bill will provide powers for people to receive intensive support to prevent them from developing more serious needs. It will help them to remain healthy and independent in their own homes, and to extend their quality years of life. In helping these two distinct groups, the Bill therefore has two clear purposes. The first is to end the lottery in home care for the most vulnerable people in our communities. Today, help for people at home with the highest needs varies according to their postcode. The second is to make the existing system fairer now and pave the way for a bigger reform of social care in the next Parliament. Focusing on reablement and building a stronger preventive element into the system will provide a bridge to the forward-looking National Care Service that we seek to create.

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) was right to say that the Bill needs to fit into the grander plan, when it is eventually published. Is he not missing the point, however, that there are people struggling now, and that they cannot wait for the White Paper or for the Bill that will follow in the next stage after the general election? We have to do something to help those people now, and that is what the Bill is about.

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and I pay tribute to him as a former care services Minister for the work he did to take forward social care, particularly the improvements we have seen in the personalisation of care services in recent years. He is absolutely right that the story of social care reform is that this House has flinched or backed away when it has all got too difficult and has found a reason to put off the reform of the system. That is why today is so significant-we are at last facing up to the unfairnesses that exist today and we are focusing clearly on the people with the greatest needs, who in my view deserve a better deal than the one they currently receive.

Andrew Lansley: I wonder whether the Secretary of State could explain to the House how he sees the Bill forming a bridge to a longer-term reform in the terms in which the options were presented in the Green Paper. The underlying proposition of the Bill is that free personal care should be provided to people at home. The Green Paper had an option of taxpayer-funded free personal care within it and the Government expressly ruled it out as being unfair in placing too great a burden on people of working age.

Andy Burnham: I repeat what I said a moment ago. The measure paves the way for a major reform of the system in two ways. First, it is fairer in terms of funding. The people we are talking about will in the vast majority of cases already have paid significant sums out of their own pockets as their condition has deteriorated. Any reform we are talking about in social care is about spreading that burden of the costs of care more fairly and not letting those who are dealt the hardest hand of cards in life and who face the greatest needs bear all the costs on their own. That was the principle that underpinned the creation of the national health service and we believe that the same principle should be valid here.
	The second point I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to is the focus on reablement and prevention. It is very important that we find a better way of investing in people's good health-investing the resources we have on the health service side and in terms of council funding-to create a more forward-looking preventive system that is geared around promoting people's independence and good health and supporting them to stay at home. For those two clear reasons, I say to him that the Bill is a bridge towards the National Care Service that we wish to see.
	Sixty-three years ago, this House voted to create the NHS to end the unfairness whereby people with the greatest needs faced the highest costs and the people who had the least were in danger of going without their needs being met at all. Today, the same unfairness exists in social care. If someone happens to develop dementia in old age, rather than cancer or heart disease, they are yet to find the "freedom from fear" that was the promise of the NHS. That was an enduring unfairness, which until now this House has failed to address. It becomes more and more evident as people live longer and we can no longer afford to ignore it.

Andrew Pelling: In being able to cross that bridge, there is obviously always the tricky issue of financing. There is some disquiet in local government that it is local councils that will have to find the bulk of this funding. In my own local authority in Croydon, 5 per cent. efficiency savings were secured-even better than the Government's target for it-so how can we cross the bridge with respect to that particular financial issue?

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman is right to mention funding because it raises real challenges both at the national level and for local authorities, but he is not right to say that councils will be asked to find the majority of the funding. I have re-prioritised my budgets within the Department of Health to find the majority of the funding necessary. We are clear, however, that efficiencies and the potential for efficiencies have been identified within social care in local government that will enable local authorities to make a contribution to the costs of this care. There is already evidence from around the country that a stronger focus on prevention and reablement can help to save local authority resources in the long term.
	As I said, the first aim of the Bill is immediate action for 280,000 people with the highest care needs, including those with advanced dementia, Parkinson's and other conditions. It does that by lifting the restriction in the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003 on the period of time for which councils can be required to provide free personal care for people living at home.
	We know that many people want to remain in their own homes if possible. A 2004 survey found that most people expressed a preference for staying in their own homes, 62 per cent. with care and support from family and friends and 56 per cent. with care and support from trained care workers. Only last month, in its "Findings" series, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation concluded:
	"Older people most often move to a care home as a result of crisis, with no preparation and little or no planning. Most do not choose to be there."
	Currently an estimated 80,000 older people in greatest need receive free personal care, but 40,000 pay part of their own costs and 50,000 pay all their costs. An estimated 90,000 younger adults receive free care, while 20,000 pay all or part of their own costs. The Bill will end that lottery, and remove the enormous and unfair financial burden on such people and their families.
	Those figures answer the question asked by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) a moment ago. The Bill will provide free care for some people who are currently paying all or part of their costs, and it guarantees that all members of that category will receive it in the future. As the hon. Gentleman knows, under the current system a local authority could change the eligibility criteria and, at any point, bring some of the people who currently receive free care into the ambit of charges.

Norman Lamb: It is probably unlikely that a local authority would change the criteria to remove free care from those in the most critical need-given that we are discussing that category. Will the Secretary of State confirm that approximately 110,000 additional people, on top of those who currently receive free care-both younger and older adults-would benefit from the Bill, and that the 400,000 figure is not an accurate reflection of the number who would benefit?

Andy Burnham: Let me break down the figure for the hon. Gentleman. Currently, 170,000 people receive free care. It is important that he acknowledge that the Bill will safeguard their position in relation to charging in the future. A further 110,000 people are funding either all or part of their own care; the Bill will exempt them from charges. A further 130,000 people will benefit from the extra investment in reablement. That will be a recurring benefit, depending on who needs reablement in any given year. The Bill represents a significant step forward for all members of that category.
	Let me give the hon. Gentleman a real example: that of an 89-year-old woman from Lowton, in my constituency. She lives alone in a one-bedroom flat. She is no longer independently mobile, is unable to prepare meals or manage her own personal care, and has impaired hearing in both ears. Relatives want her to be supported at home for as long as possible. They say that she would be devastated if she had to go into a care home. She has four visits during the day and one later in the evening, with two staff attending all visits to ensure safe moving and handling. The cost of the care package is approximately £500 per week, or £26,000 per year. As a result of the Bill, her care will be free.

Andrew Lansley: I am still confused about what the Secretary of State considers to be the purpose of the Bill. He seemed to argue at the outset that it was to give free personal care to those in greatest need, but he must surely know that many of those in greatest need have made substantial financial contributions and then go into long-term residential care. He appears to be offering nothing to them. In what way are they any different from those who receive care at home?

Andy Burnham: Let me repeat that the Bill has two purposes: to make the existing system fairer now, in the recognition that we cannot solve all the problems in advance of a major reform, and to prepare the ground for a more fundamental reform of social care in England which would encompass everyone, in all care settings. As I said a moment ago, it is important to create a system that helps people to live independently. In our view, that is the right way to create and reconfigure the system. I am surprised that the shadow Health Secretary is seeking to pick holes by asking, "Why aren't you doing everything now?" Surely it is right to do something now to help people in the greatest need, whose families are facing the greatest pressure as they seek to attend to their care needs, rather than to nit-pick by saying, "If it isn't a complete reform, it's not worth having." Our argument is that it is worth having, but we are also committed to reforming social care in the next Parliament, and I wonder whether the Conservative party is prepared to make a similar commitment.

Jacqui Lait: May we briefly pursue the costs issue? As I understand it, the Secretary of State is expecting local government to find £250 million a year from savings. What discussions has he had with other Departments that are also asking local government to make savings, and what will be the cumulative effect of his demand for £250 million along with those other Departments' demands? Also, how do they expect local government to find that money-or is that why a 4 per cent. increase in council tax is one of the measures in the pre-Budget report?

Andy Burnham: The hon. Lady raises a fair point. She rightly asks where the efficiencies will come from. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for care services has been working with colleagues in local government on a use-of-resources guide, which clearly demonstrates how further savings can be found within social care, particularly by funding prevention services and helping people stay independently in their home. I will come on to an example from the Isle of Wight, where a Conservative-controlled authority has successfully invested in prevention and reablement, and thereby saved considerable sums of money. I shall not do so now, but I could cite examples of Conservative authorities that are doing the opposite-they are cutting social care. The hon. Lady asks me to update the House on where the savings can come from, which is a fair question, but we have identified that.

Brooks Newmark: I believe that when the right hon. Gentleman was a Health Minister he made the point that the vast number of people in all our constituencies who work very hard on a voluntary basis to support families and friends save the state enormous amounts of money, and I wonder whether his analysis puts a value on that. More importantly, what support is he proposing to give to these individuals who are spending enormous amounts of their time to help relatives?

Andy Burnham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point: informal carers save billions of pounds that otherwise would have to be met by state-provided support. The actual figure has been costed by Carers UK and others, and it is huge.  [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Minister says that the sum is £80 billion. Carers do not see their care in monetary terms, however; they would always look after their loved ones.
	Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman what is squarely my intention in respect of carers in reforming the system and bringing forward the National Care Service. We will always have to depend on their love and support for their families, but we can do better in making their life more tolerable, such as by letting them call down the support when they need it, rather than when the system says that they should get it. It is a fundamental part of any reform of social care that we provide to the many informal carers in this country the kind of back-up and support that makes being a carer tolerable and that allows them to balance that with all the other demands on their life. For me, that is a crucial aspect of creating a higher quality care system.

Brooks Newmark: The Secretary of State's comments will be extremely helpful to my constituents in Braintree. Each and every week I meet one or two people who give a lot of their time, and who ask me, "Can the state do more to help me, not on a financial basis, but on an enabling basis?" If the Secretary of State could give me one or two examples of how his Government will do that, that would be helpful.

Andy Burnham: I can give a very specific example. The hon. Gentleman may know that last year we asked primary care trusts to fund respite care for carers and for breaks, and I believe it was the first year that that requirement was included in the operating framework. Some analysis has been done, not least by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers, on whether that has been fully implemented around the country. I have been considering whether we can strengthen the language relating to that commitment as part of this year's operating framework.
	That is a very direct example of how the health service is moving into supporting carers more directly-I think that was the point that the hon. Gentleman wanted me to answer-and it shows the specific, practical support that the health service can give. Hon. Members will know, if their constituencies are like mine, that respite care is under-provided for and that there is more we can do to give people those little breaks that make life tolerable. That was why we included that funding requirement in the operating framework of the NHS, and I assure him that we will be repeating it when the framework for next year is published.

Stephen Ladyman: My right hon. Friend might need to have a think about this point and come back to me on it. The Bill works by amending the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003, which provides that when somebody is discharged a carer's assessment also has to be carried out. If that assessment indicates that a carer needs additional support, within the framework of what we are doing today will we also fund the support of that carer?

Andy Burnham: We will certainly look at the detail of what my hon. Friend is saying. My initial response is that that would be included as part of the overall care plan that the individual would receive, but I shall respond to him in detail on that point to ensure that the carer's needs are properly taken into account.
	Currently, all personal care at home is potentially a means-tested service; local councils can determine the amount people have to pay within national guidelines. Community care assessments are carried out to determine the level of a person's needs, based on the criteria laid out in guidance. Nevertheless, levels of support vary widely across the country, so this Bill is about creating a fairer system. We want to ensure that the support goes to those who need it most. It is estimated that of those who will benefit, some 60 per cent. are in the middle quintile of the income distribution of the general population, about 30 per cent. are in the second quintile and about 10 per cent. are in the bottom quintile.

Pete Wishart: Can the Secretary of State clarify his intentions on attendance allowance? He will know that when Scotland introduced free personal care, £30 million of attendance allowance was cut from the Scottish budget, and that got in the way of our being able to deliver our service. However, I believe that he intends that existing claimants in England will continue to secure their attendance allowance. Why the difference between Scotland and England?

Andy Burnham: I am sorry to say to the hon. Gentleman that this Bill does not deal with the reform of benefits. We debated that in the House last week, and the hon. Gentleman would have received very full answers to those questions had he been here. This Bill is not funded by the reform of attendance allowance or disability living allowance.
	The beneficiaries of extending free personal care as proposed in this policy will be those on middle to below-middle incomes relative to the overall population. We believe that that will have a small, but positive, redistributive effect.

John Hayes: rose-

Andy Burnham: I shall give way in a moment, but this is an important point. The Bill answers one of the key issues identified by the 1998 royal commission:
	"The Commission conclude that doing nothing with respect to the current system is not an option. It is too complex and provides no clarity as to what people can expect. It too often causes people to move into residential care when this might not be the best outcome. Help is available to the poorest but the system leads to the impoverishment of people with moderate assets before they can get any help."
	The Bill is a direct answer to that criticism.

John Hayes: The intervention by the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) draws attention to an important aspect of the Bill and perhaps to a gap in it. When the legislation that this Bill amends was introduced in 2002, the Secretary of State at the time argued that it would bridge the gap between health and social care. However, if this Bill is inadequate in bridging that gap in the way that was inferred by the hon. Gentleman-the gap also applies to support for organisations that might facilitate or enhance care at home-it is surely premature and would have been better as part of a bigger Bill to take advantage of the opportunity to do exactly what the hon. Gentleman said and what was heralded with the introduction of the earlier legislation.

Andy Burnham: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I believe that the Bill does exactly what he is calling for. It will drive further integration between health and social care. It will encourage the health service to spend more of its resources on supporting individuals in the home. In that way, it will help local government, which has too often been faced with a very difficult job in balancing resources at a local level to give people the support that they need. I do not say at all that this Bill is the final answer and the whole solution-it is not. We have said that it is a partial step that will move the system forward and make it fairer today, as well as make it more preventive in character. It is worth doing for those reasons, but I agree that we need more fundamental reform. We would look for support from the Opposition to reform the system more fundamentally. I believe that the demographics of the country now demand it. If we do not reform the system soon, the unfairnesses will grow year by year. I do not think that any of us would want to contemplate that prospect. Typically, the people who require personal care services are over 75 years old, live alone and are generally in poorer health. This measure is not just compassionate; it is progressive.
	The second aim of the Bill is to help another 130,000 people by encouraging reablement support after a fall, when their health deteriorates or following a period in hospital. Reablement might mean adaptation to make a person's home wheelchair-friendly, the use of technology such as alarms or electronic pill dispensers to improve safety, or physiotherapy and personal support to help people learn how to perform daily tasks after illness or injury.

Andrew Lansley: The Secretary of State is being generous in giving way. I merely seek a point of information. Can he explain why this legislation is required to provide reablement services?

Andy Burnham: This legislation is not required to provide reablement services. However, we are clearly linking it to the support provided to people receiving free personal care, as it will be a gateway to that support. We want to place the emphasis at all times in spending public money on encouraging prevention-on putting prevention at the heart of the system. We think that that is the correct link to make. If we are to consider somebody for free personal care in the home, we should first give them the opportunity of an intensive period of support. There is good and growing evidence from around the country that that support can reduce people's reliance on care and support down the line.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his clarification that the purpose of the reference to reablement in the legislation is not to provide reablement when people leave hospital after an operation, for example, but to make it a condition of their subsequent receipt of free personal care that they have accepted such reablement services. Would that apply to those who would currently receive free personal care on a means-tested basis-that is, would all those receiving free personal care be required to comply with that?

Andy Burnham: Strictly speaking, the Bill provides the local authority with discretion to provide that support, but that is clearly the direction in which we want to see care services develop. In answer to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) I used the example of the Isle of Wight, and it is an instructive example. It shows that by investing early on and supporting people better when they need it most, long-term reliance on care and support can be reduced.

Norman Lamb: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way again. Does he accept that there are some cases in which a requirement of reablement would not be appropriate? For example, someone in their last days needs personal care but it would be entirely inappropriate to go through some false process of reablement that would not benefit that individual. I am concerned that councils might be in a position where they might exclude someone in those circumstances.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. There are some people for whom reablement, or intensive support, would not be appropriate. He gave as an example people who receive palliative care, and that is obviously true for them. Nobody would want anything in the Bill to place pressure on people or put them through a process that they must and should not go through. The regulations under the legislation will make that clear. Of course, the measures should not deny such people any support should they qualify under the relevant terms.
	We believe that by investing in reablement we can prevent emergency admissions to hospital, prevent people from ending up in crisis situations and help people live independently in their homes for longer. I have mentioned the Isle of Wight a few times. It has had a 40 per cent. reduction in residential care placements since it introduced free personal care in the home. That work is already going on in other places and showing its worth. The Wirral is also taking a lead on investment in reablement services. Let me give an example.
	A 77-year-old woman who had been dependent on carers for two years was admitted to hospital for aortic valve surgery. She had got used to doing very little for herself; she was sleeping downstairs and was using a bowl of water in the lounge and a commode to meet her personal care needs. On discharge, she received three visits a day from the home assessment and reablement team to help her with personal care and meal preparation. The team helped her to practise using the stairs and encouraged her to undertake daily tasks such as opening the curtains, putting on the washing and making her own lunch. Over six weeks, the number of visits that were required gradually decreased, and she is now living happily and independently without any intervention from social services. Such inspiring examples show how we can help people to regain independence and how we can spend public money more effectively.
	In that way, the Bill aims to enable people to retain their independence, as well as aiming to reduce costs and prevent ill health. It will help to ensure that people remain economically active by providing the support and control that families and carers need to balance work and caring. We want to build on the work that many councils have already begun on prevention and intervention to support people in living independently in the community. The Bill encourages, but does not require, councils to offer a reablement package. The offer of free personal care and better use of resources will push authorities to bring in alternative models of care and will embed prevention and reablement, all of which have been shown to be more cost effective and to offer better outcomes. That approach could help authorities to generate by 2013 the £250 million that early estimates suggest will be the additional cost of free personal care. It will reduce the cost of care for individuals, including those who continue to fund their own care, and will help people to stay independent. By extending a hand to those with lower-level needs, we can help to reduce isolation and help to keep people active. In doing so, we can prevent people from slipping to the point at which more intensive care and support are required.
	There has been a great deal of speculation and misinformation about how the Bill will be funded, so I shall take this opportunity to explain our approach again in the clearest terms possible. The measures we are proposing will cost £670 million in the first full year, which will be provided entirely from the Department of Health budget and by local government. Some £420 million will come from the Department, and the remainder will be met by local authorities. That funding, along with the scope for further efficiency gains, will be considered as part of the normal spending review process. It is right that councils should play their part alongside central Government in helping to deliver the commitment on free personal care. We will be consulting on the distribution mechanism for local authorities. I repeat that it is completely incorrect to say that any of the money will come from cutting disability benefits or from cutting cancer research or any other important research.

Robert Syms: Will the £250 million from local government be a one-off cost or a recurring cost year on year? I note that some of the money will come from the Department of Health's research, development, marketing and consultancy budgets. Will those be recurring or one-off costs, and is all this in the pre-Budget report?

Andy Burnham: Local government efficiency is in the pre-Budget report, and it is a recurring cost; but the savings are also recurring. It is about spending public money better than we do at the moment. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation acknowledged, too many people are pushed into residential care as a result of crisis, when actually with appropriate support they could be helped to regain independence. If we help someone to regain independence at that critical moment in their life, it is good not just for that individual but for the public purse, because it means that people do not require care in a residential setting in the long term.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) made a good point, which I am afraid the Secretary of State has not properly answered. In the pre-Budget report, the £250 million efficiency saving is scored as a reduction in residential care costs, but it is treated as a saving from local government that contributes to the overall level of efficiency savings. It is not disclosed in the PBR as additional expenditure elsewhere. Furthermore, from what the Secretary of State says, in 2010-11 there will on the face of it be a £210 million transfer from the NHS line in the departmental expenditure limit to the Department of Health line. That has not happened. Why not?

Andy Burnham: The savings identified in the pre-Budget report will remain with local authorities and can then be used to meet their contribution towards providing free personal care for those with the highest need, as we have said all along. Of course, there is an incentive for local authorities in the form of the extra resources I have found from central budgets in my Department, but as I said a moment ago, we believe that by making that investment we can make savings down the line. We believe that giving people intensive support at home can reduce overall costs to the public purse, as one of the hon. Gentleman's local authorities-the Isle of Wight-has discovered. Perhaps he should take a trip there and cheer up a bit.

Hywel Williams: Can the Secretary of State tell the House what the Barnett consequential from the spending will be for the National Assembly?

Andy Burnham: There is no Barnett consequential from the spending. It is spending that is already allocated and has been reprioritised.

Jacqui Lait: Will the redistribution of the money the Secretary of State has found from his departmental resources be done on the basis of the local government formula or on the basis of need in each local authority?

Andy Burnham: I encourage the hon. Lady to look at the Bill's impact assessment, which proposes a number of options for the distribution package. We are consulting on the best distribution mechanism. Obviously, there are always strong views in local government about whether a package should be needs-led or per capita. We shall want to work through those issues with local government- [ Interruption. ] My hon. Friend the Minister is nodding. There is time for the Local Government Association to feed in its clear views, as I am sure it will, and we shall pay close attention to what it says.

Norman Lamb: The consultation on the regulations makes it clear that the sum available is finite-it will not be increased-yet the impact assessment makes it very clear that there are considerable uncertainties about total costs and the total numbers of people who may benefit and qualify for help under the Bill. If the cost is significantly more, what will happen? If the sum is finite, who loses out in those circumstances?

Andy Burnham: As I was saying to the shadow Health Secretary, there is discretion for local authorities under the Bill, but we have costed the Bill and we are absolutely clear about the people we expect to benefit from it. We are confident that the costings we have given will pay for the benefits that I have described this afternoon.
	The Bill is about putting more money into the social care system now. I do not think that anyone in the House seriously disagrees-unless I am about to discover otherwise-with the fact that the measure is much needed, prudent and fair. It is targeted on those in England with the highest needs who face the highest costs. As I said earlier, many people have had to use their own funds to pay towards the cost of their care.
	Reform of care and support is fiscally responsible in the long term. Failure to reform will lead to huge unmet need and pressure on public finances and public services in both the NHS and local government for years to come. The demographic pressure is rising. Year by year, more people will come into a care system that cannot fully cater for them. When the NHS was created there were eight working adults for every retired person. Today there are four. By 2050, that will figure fall to just two. We can expect that by 2026 there will be 1.7 million more adults in England who need care and support.
	One in five of us will need care that costs less than £1,000 during our retirement. One in five will need care that costs more than £50,000, and in the worst cases the cost can exceed £200,000. We cannot predict our risk, so it is hard to protect ourselves against it. That is why we need a reform that shares the costs and risks of care and does not leave those in the most difficult circumstances facing catastrophic costs for care. The need for bold, far-reaching reform is undeniable. That is why we propose to create a National Care Service, and why we will bring forward a White Paper in the new year.
	This is a major reform and, although it is essential, it will take time to deliver. [Inte r ruption.] I hear the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) say from the Front Bench that it has taken time. We have not done nothing for the past 11 years. We have introduced major reforms to social care in England. We have introduced the dementia strategy, the drive towards personalisation and direct budgets, the Putting People First reform. We have had the prevention for older people pilots, which have laid the ground for the present reform. It is not as if we have been doing nothing. We have been taking steps to improve the system.
	I did not hear whether the hon. Gentleman agrees that a fundamental reform in the next Parliament is necessary, but I shall be interested to hear whether he has the courage to commit to that. People have waited long enough. We are not saying that we have got everything perfectly right, but we have the courage and the confidence to introduce a Bill. In the interim we are introducing the Personal Care at Home Bill, recognising that those with the greatest needs cannot wait and should not be asked to wait to receive greater fairness. The Bill is not the whole answer, but it is a bold first step, and I commend it to the House.

Andrew Lansley: I am sure the House is grateful to the Secretary of State for taking so many interventions with a view to our understanding not only the purpose of the Bill, but how it is intended to work. Although it is a short Bill, considerable complications arise from it.
	The debate on the principles of the Bill takes place in the context of the Government's Green Paper and the reform of social care and support. There are two topics that hon. Members across the House would not want to leave out of account in considering how we should reform care and support for the future. First, we must continuously look beyond organisation and funding issues to understand the quality of the service being provided to people at home or in residential care homes. The Care Quality Commission report a fortnight ago on social care made it clear that a considerable proportion-about one in four-of care providers are not yet meeting the good or excellent standards that we would expect for ourselves or our relatives.

Phil Hope: Four hundred were poor.

Andrew Lansley: But many were only adequate, as the Minister with responsibility for care services knows very well. That is not a party political point. We need to ensure that quality is as good as any of us would expect for ourselves or our relatives.
	The second thing that we need to do is well understood but not always achieved: we must be sure that we have the social care work force available to make that happen. That is affected by the esteem in which social workers are held, and by factors in the social care sector. It is not a well-paid sector, and it is rarely at the forefront of the public's mind when it comes to understanding what provides value in the community. However, it does provide important services on which we depend greatly. The presence of that work force is important, and it is important that we support it. I say that because in these debates we tend to focus on funding and organisation, but we must always look beyond that.
	The Secretary of State, in his introduction to the Bill, said something that I echo: for 12 and a half years, which just happens to be the length of time that the Labour Government have been in office, the Government have failed to bring to care, support and long-term care funding the long-term structural reform that they repeatedly promised. It was in 1997 that, for example, Mr. Tony Blair said that he did not want to live in a country where older people had to sell their homes to pay for care. Some 13 years later, that is still precisely the situation.
	Just after the 1997 general election, the Labour Government established the royal commission on long-term care, which reported in 1999. The Secretary of State said that this Bill was the direct response to that, but perhaps I have missed something, because my recollection was that a Labour Government had rejected the central recommendations of that royal commission.

Stephen Ladyman: rose-

Andrew Lansley: I shall certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman. I do not recall him, when he was the Minister with responsibility for these matters, approving of what the royal commission said, but perhaps he will tell us otherwise.

Stephen Ladyman: I shall deal with that point if I manage to catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye later. First, I want to deal with the issue, constantly replayed by the Conservative party, that people have to sell their homes when they receive care. They have to do so because Conservative councils consistently fail to tell people that the money was given to those authorities to put a charge on people's properties so that they could be sold, if necessary, after their death. If Conservative councils actually told them about that, many more people would keep their homes.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman seems to be squirming because of the simple fact that Labour made a promise almost 13 years ago which has not been kept, and 45,000 people a year end up selling their homes to pay for their care. Many of them are already in long-term residential care. The issue is not whether their property is sold at the time that they enter care, while they are in care or, even, after they have died; for them, the issue is that they wanted everything that they had worked for, saved for and accumulated in assets throughout their whole lifetime not only to provide them with financial security, but to be a heritable asset for their families, and that simply has not happened.

Stephen Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Lansley: I have not really begun yet, but I shall of course give way in a minute.
	I find the situation very strange, because over the past decade Scotland has increasingly demonstrated that a policy of free personal care is unaffordable. Indeed, colleagues from other countries in the United Kingdom are present, and owing to the circumstances in which the policy was applied in Scotland, it has cost a great deal more than the authorities intended and they have had to cash-limit it, introducing therefore just the kind of unfairness in terms of access against which the Secretary of State now rails. Furthermore, the policy does not meet the accommodation costs of those in long-term residential care, so those costs have also escalated. The policy has not made people feel the intended sense of financial security.
	Those are all the reasons why a Labour Government said for many years that free personal care, as Scotland has offered it, is simply unaffordable in England and cannot be supported. I do not dispute that we supported that conclusion, because I made the same point myself. Indeed, a Government Green Paper published as recently as July said that to pay for the costs of care out of general taxation would impose an unreasonable burden on those of working age; that it would have a major, further distributional impact between generations and on those who continue to work; and that the Government therefore ruled it out. In July, as far as we were concerned, the Labour party was continuing to rule out free personal care, but in September the Prime Minister got up at the Labour party conference and said that he wanted to offer free personal care paid for out of general taxation.
	There is no sense in which the Bill constitutes a bridge between the current position and the options in the Green Paper with which the Government are proceeding. They are talking about three options: the partnership model with universal care and a third of it paid for up front, a comprehensive insurance model, or an involuntary insurance model. Under none of the three models in the Green Paper would those with substantial or critical care needs have all their needs met out of general taxation.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman is not making a fair point. In any scenario under the reform options in the Green Paper, people with the greatest needs would receive more help than they receive today. I am not saying at this Dispatch Box that this Bill is the perfect reform, but I am saying that it will get more help now to the people who would be most helped under any more fundamental reform of the system. The point that he is missing is that those people have already had to dip into their own pockets to a significant degree to fund the costs of the care they are receiving. Our argument is that we should make it fairer for them now.
	As regards Scotland, this is not the same proposal-it is about targeting help on people with the most critical needs, not paying for free personal care across the board, as is made available in Scotland.

Andrew Lansley: This is interesting. I understand the Secretary of State's point, but this is not an interim proposal towards long-term reform. It is perfectly okay for the Government to say, "This is something that we would like to do on its own terms. We think it is justified." I will go on to examine whether it is the appropriate priority for the resources to be used within the care and support context. However, it clearly cannot be construed as a bridge to any of the other proposals. Otherwise, the structure of support that would be offered would be intended not to provide free personal care but to provide for people with substantial or critical care needs some of their care for some period of time-or a proportion of it, such as a third or a quarter-free, universal and up front. That would be the logical corollary of the options set out in the Green Paper.
	The proposal does not seem to bear any examination as a substantial measure of long-term reform. It prompts a question that the Secretary of State and I argued about last week. Surely it would be better for the Government to be clear about what they think the structure of long-term reform of care should look like, and for us to do the same, before the point at which this House is asked to spend a considerable sum of money, and to put in place legislation in a very particular form, without our having even seen what the Government's longer-term legislative intentions are and our having had the chance to set ours out in the same way.

Andy Burnham: Is the shadow Health Secretary comfortable with the fact that for people with the most critical care needs, their care is a lottery, with some receiving all their care paid for, and some part funded? Is he saying that it is not worth making this change so that at least the most vulnerable people get care according to their needs, not their postcode?

Andrew Lansley: The Secretary of State is asking me to anticipate the rest of my argument. We have made it clear that we see a case for enabling people to have greater certainty. That is why at our party conference my colleagues and I proposed- [ Interruption. ] Every time we ask the Secretary of State to answer a question yes or no, he always gives us a long answer, which is never yes or no. I do not see why I should be any different.
	We want to give people the opportunity to create greater certainty and to meet their costs. The question is what is the best way of doing it. In their Green Paper, the Government put forward options that include using disability benefits, forcing people to take insurance, or giving people the opportunity to take out insurance. We, for our part, made it clear at our party conference that we wanted to develop the opportunity for people to take out insurance but did not think it right to do that for every care need.
	As I have said before, there is a good argument for offering people the opportunity to take out what we regard as affordable insurance not only for long-term residential care costs that place their home at risk, but for critical care needs, because the costs of care for those who are means-tested tend to accumulate and can deprive them of their assets. The Secretary of State must know that those are people who have significant cash assets and whose home is not at risk at the point in question. There may be a realistic and affordable opportunity to allow them, too, to offset their risks through insurance and have the certainty for which they are looking.

Stephen Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that given that the average cost of care home fees is about £26,000 a year and that most people who go into care homes spend a little over two years there, his proposals for insuring against care home fees would effectively mean that for every one person who benefited, at least another seven would have invested in an insurance policy and got no benefit? The policy will require him to set the cost of care homes, set the quality and standards of them even more rigorously, and set eligibility criteria for those who go into care homes.

Andrew Lansley: As the hon. Gentleman has asked me that, I shall turn to something that I was going to say later. I agree with his last point: of course the policy will require there to be an objective assessment of need to enter long-term residential care, otherwise insurance providers would run the risk of people choosing to go into residential care when they did not require it. However, I do not agree with his interpretation of the numbers. I have set out clearly that we are operating on the basis of people paying about £8,000 at age 65. There is then a considerable period before the average point at which people enter care, which will allow that fund to accumulate. As he says, about £25,000 or £26,000 is the current figure per year, for just over two years on average, which means that there will be a cost of about £50,000 a person for the one in five who enter long-term care-£10,000 per person insured-to be funded by the approximately £8,000 that they originally paid in, which will have accumulated more over a period of time. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to make it clear that the numbers are straightforward.

Norman Lamb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Lansley: I will, and then I had better get on with the Bill itself.

Norman Lamb: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that, just as the criticism of the Bill is that it is a partial solution with the potential for perverse effects, exactly the same criticism can be applied to his proposal? It could end up affecting behaviour and pushing people in a direction that might not be the most rational for them as individuals.

Andrew Lansley: I understand that it is important for us not to have a perverse incentive that means that people who should be in long-term residential care are not, and that they are instead being looked after at home in ways that are not necessarily in their best interests. There are clearly worries about that. Many families and individuals make the decision for their older relative, partner or spouse to be in long-term residential care most reluctantly and when it is in their best interests to be there. We should not create an ideological fixation on people not being in long-term residential care. We should operate on the basis of what is in the best interests of older people themselves.
	Equally, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should not seek to create a perverse incentive for people to be in long-term residential care because there is not adequate support in the domiciliary context. That is why, as I have just said, we should consider the opportunity of extending the voluntary insurance concept to critical care needs in domiciliary care. In the circumstances that we have described, with an affordable insurance market to meet the costs of long-term residential care, insurance providers will have an incentive to help people stay at home rather than go into long-term residential care, so we can begin to create the broader insurance system that I understood underlay one of the Government's options in the Green Paper. To that extent, although we clearly have problems with the Government's Green Paper, we have not said that we are not prepared to use it as a basis on which we can develop our own proposals. We have already done so, and we helpfully added to the proposals at our party conference, as I described.
	The Bill is very short. It contains only one substantive clause, containing a number of amendments of previous community care legislation. As I shall explain, I fear that it has significant flaws and that there are significant unanswered questions. Of course, it is undercosted and as yet unfunded. Essentially, the local government component is simply to say to local authorities, "Here is this additional statutory obligation. By the way, you'll find the money for it won't you?" Local government has been through such a process many times before. The Government seem to be engaging in double counting. On Wednesday of last week, they were telling local authorities to achieve those efficiency savings and scoring them as part of the reduction of the deficit; this week they are presenting legislation that scores the same efficiency savings but then tells local authorities they have to spend them. They cannot have both.
	We need clarity on the future of social care. The Secretary of State keeps asking whether our intention is to reform social care after the election, but why is he so fussed about that if he is confident of being in office then? He clearly is not. There is something deeply ironic in saying, after 13 years of a Labour Government who have not achieved the reform of social care, "It's about time a Conservative Government who are committed to the reform of social care came in."
	We have had 13 years in which hundreds of thousands of older people have had to sell their homes to pay for care, contrary to Labour's promises; 13 years of rising costs and, as the Office for National Statistics has demonstrated, falling productivity in social care; and 13 years of decreasing council-arranged care, when the proportion of people with moderate and lower care needs has been falling. Now, months before a general election, having said for 13 years that providing people with free personal care was unaffordable and unattainable, the Labour Government say it is their priority; and now, lo and behold, they suddenly say that they can find the money, starting in October 2010. It all fits into the same pattern that we heard so much of from the Chancellor in his pre-Budget report-make the Government virtuous, oh Lord, but not yet.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend, with typical, measured and moderate understatement-the sort of understatement that he personifies-is making the charge against the Government that the Bill is political. I would go further, and I hope he might join me: is this not about vulnerable people staying in their home, but about one vulnerable person staying in his home-namely, the Prime Minister in Downing street?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. At the time of the Queen's Speech, the Prime Minister described the Bill as one of his flagship pieces of legislation; in truth, it is more like a life raft or an attempt to keep the Labour Government afloat.

Greg Mulholland: Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that if there is a March election, as is rumoured, the Bill will hardly be on the statute books, never mind implemented? What is the point of talking about this Bill now, when as he knows, we need a real reform?

Andrew Lansley: It is not for me to speculate on election timings.

Phil Hope: Go on!

Andrew Lansley: The Minister tempts me, but I will not do so. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) asks about a March election. For that to happen, it must be called at the end of February, but the consultation on the regulations on this legislation will conclude only on about 23 February. Clearly, the Bill is more about propaganda for a general election than the delivery of social care reform after it.
	None the less, we are debating the structure of care reform. There are two serious problems with some of the options presented in the Green Paper. First-I will not go on at great length about this because we debated it in Opposition time last Tuesday-there is serious difficulty with the Government's intention to integrate disability benefits into the National Care Service funding. Of course, the Government did a U-turn last Tuesday and completely changed the proposal to integrate for current benefit recipients. It is fascinating that the Government are now proposing that over-65s who receive attendance allowance-let us say £60 a week on average-and disability living allowance should have that money taken away, so that it can be given to the local authority and then given back to them to spend in exactly the same way.

Stephen O'Brien: With no loss.

Andrew Lansley: Apparently that will happen with no loss in transaction costs in the process. That is absurd. We know why the Government have ended up in that position. Under pressure, they did a U-turn but, to put it gently, it has left them looking very exposed.
	For the longer term of the introduction of the reforms, the Government intend to integrate those disability benefits to pay for the up-front, universal entitlement to care. The effect would be to take away a cash benefit that recipients can use to meet a range of needs and costs and to substitute a care package. From our point of view, that remains unacceptable. We need to buttress and strengthen the right to control, and to personalise, care services, and continuing access to a cash benefit remains important for that to happen.
	In response to the Secretary of State's statement on the Green Paper in July, I said that it is important to reach a common assessment of need-one that informs the non-means-tested cash benefit and the means-tested or insurance-funded social care entitlement. As with the extension of personal health care budgets, care users need the assessment process overall to become simpler and more integrated, for the resulting budgets and assessment processes that arise to be applied flexibly to meet their needs, for there to be a choice of providers, and for the assessment of need to be portable, as people will inevitably move around the country.

Andy Burnham: In simple terms, will the hon. Gentleman explain how a single assessment process can work for both a universal benefit and a means-tested social care system?

Andrew Lansley: Yes. In simple terms-I shall repeat the language I used-I am talking about an assessment of need; it is not an assessment of entitlements. Of course, entitlements will depend, nationally, on a cash entitlement on the one hand, but on the other on a local authority's decision and discretion about what it provides for what level of need. However, a single assessment of need seems to me to be perfectly understandable. Perhaps the Secretary of State should explain that to his former colleague, and I will come to what the noble Lord Warner said in another place in due course.
	The second problem we have with the options in the Green Paper-

Phil Hope: What about the Bill?

Andrew Lansley: According to the Secretary of State, the Bill is supposed to be associated with the Green Paper and to be a bridge to it.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) for reminding me that the noble Lord Warner said:
	"We need a more bipartisan and coherent approach than is provided for in this Bill...I am resigning myself to the fact that many of us will have to try to make the Bill more sensible and realistic about costs and funding arrangements",
	and I agree.
	He continued:
	"Good places to start would be some national rules on service eligibility criteria to avoid a postcode lottery and making local assessments of individuals portable to other areas."-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 26 November 2009; Vol. 715, c. 541-42.]
	So the idea of portability of assessment is rightly being pursued in the other place.
	The second difficulty with the Bill is that the Government just do not seem to have an idea of how many informal self-funders there are. The Local Government Association, in its response to the Bill, said:
	"We are concerned that the actual number of beneficiaries (and therefore costs) could turn out to be very different from the Government's estimates. The Impact Assessment which accompanies the Bill provides little reassurance. We are particularly concerned that the estimated number of people with high care needs who self-fund their care may be too low."
	Counsel and Care said, similarly:
	"We need to see exactly who will be helped as a result of free personal care at home. To this end, the following areas require further definition...what are 'critical' as opposed to 'substantial' care needs, what 'personal care at home' will cover in full, when the NHS should step in and fund the care."
	Age UK said:
	"We would like clarification about the definition of personal care at home, especially when services described may be better delivered outside the home or where personal budgets are currently used to deliver similar outcomes. There is significant uncertainty about the true costs of the proposals as we do not know how many people who do not currently receive services might come forward."
	That is why we cannot have any confidence about what the cost of this Bill will be. By their own admission, the Government have nothing other than a gross estimate-a generalised estimate-of how many people are receiving informal or family care, or who are self-funding but not using council-arranged care. The evidence from Scotland demonstrates that large numbers of those people start to become claimants of free personal care if it is offered to them.
	The Bill appears to be unfunded. In the explanatory notes to the Bill, which sometimes explain and sometimes do not, I was astonished by a sentence in paragraph 17:
	"The Government's view is that the Bill has little overall effect on public sector manpower and public expenditure."
	So £670 million-on the Government's estimate-is of little effect. Convert that figure into dollars and we really have arrived at a billion here or a billion there. Soon that adds up to real money, but that does not seem to matter to the Government.
	Where will that money come from? In response to an intervention, the Secretary of State seemed to be completely unable to explain why, in last week's pre-Budget report, what should have been represented as a £200 million transfer from the NHS in England into the Department of Health's expenditure simply does not appear in the Red Book. I am astonished that the Secretary of State could not explain that. He was at pains to mention the "myths" about where the money would come from, so perhaps he can explain where it will come from. He has been quoted as saying that some £60 million of it will come from "lower priority research projects". Which are these lower priority projects? Which such projects did the Government see fit to fund in the first place?
	I have seen a long list of research projects, and the Government used to make considerable play of the fact that they had increased the NHS research and development budgets. Which advertising campaigns will the Secretary of State stop to pay for this Bill? Will it be tobacco control, the current swine flu campaign, next year's seasonal flu campaign, the sexual health campaigns or the Department's contribution to "Frank", the drug campaign? And which local authority activities will contribute the £250 million? On the face of it, the Government are arguing that it will come from a reduction in residential care home payments, but the impact assessment does not suggest that anything like that number of people will switch from residential care. The Department think that only 2,700 people would transfer from residential to domiciliary care.
	Nor does the Green Paper offer a credible way forward in relation to insurance funding. The compulsory process is not really a basis for consensus because, in effect, it would just transfer into compulsory insurance something that would, to all intents and purposes, be just a taxation per head. Compulsion and tax amount to much the same thing.

Jacqui Lait: Would my hon. Friend be prepared to speculate on the cost of staffing for the intensive rehabilitation that will be required, including new occupational therapists, physiotherapists and psychologists?

Andrew Lansley: There is no evidence in the impact assessment that any of this has been thought through. All that is included by way of costs is the Government estimate that it will cost £1,000 per person, made up of 30 hours at £30 an hour. But Governments wishing to provide additional services have to think about the inclusive costs. They cannot say that the marginal cost of trained staff is £30 an hour, because they have to think about the average costs over the long run. They have put marginal costing in the assessment on the basis that, magically, all those staff would be available from October 2010. We know that that will not necessarily be the case.
	It is important to be clear about what we want to see forming part of this consensus. I do not wish to give the impression that we oppose everything about this Bill-or its purposes. We have made it clear that we need a much more preventive focus on the shape of social care for the longer term. The NHS and local authorities can and should come together to deliver better preventive services. Those should not be confined to reablement, and the measures that often work best-as we have seen from examples-are telecare, telemedicine and home adaptations, for example, which are being done early rather than just waiting until people have had falls or operations and have to be discharged home.

Robert Syms: Much of the care given to the elderly in their own homes is by relatives, who are often excluded from being paid for undertaking that service. Is there not a danger that some of those relatives will use the Bill as an opportunity to withdraw and allow their contribution to be picked up by paid people? Is there not an argument that spending money on respite care for relatives might be a cheaper and better option than paying for the salaries of staff caring in people's homes?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We need to guard against the risk of diminishing the contribution that informal and family care can make, as that can often give the care recipient the greatest sense of security and well-being. That is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I have been so keen on the extension of emergency and planned respite care. The money that the Princess Royal Trust said had been allocated by the Government has not all got through, but it is important that it is used for that purpose. The big picture, as I was saying, is that, wherever possible, we have to give care recipients and their families the opportunity to use personal budgets to help to make that happen. The Secretary of State talked about direct payments, but they are used in a very small minority of cases-some 4 per cent. of total adult care recipients. That is a very small start. It is important that we develop the concept of personalisation and bringing those budgets together to make it happen.

Norman Lamb: Returning to the costing of reablement, the hon. Gentleman described costing as taking place on the basis of a certain number of hours multiplied by the number of people who will benefit. Is it his understanding, as it is mine, that there is no assessment of the cost of adaptations or of equipment, telecare and so forth, which may well be a fundamental part of the package of reablement to enable the person to remain at home? That appears to be out of the equation.

Andrew Lansley: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right-there is no reference to that. Indeed, this is one purpose of the proposals that we have been discussing for some years: creating a public health service that operates with dedicated funding for public health from within the NHS, and, indeed, local authorities working together.
	More recently, the hon. Gentleman's party has joined in with the concept. Of course, this is precisely where we can begin to consider some of these programmes: the benefits accrue not only in the community at large and to those families, but to local authorities and the NHS, which makes a good case for investment on the part of the public health service as it is not simply confined to the question whether it offsets hospital admissions. That is often the narrow basis on which the NHS judges these things.
	We have seen programmes such as a telecare programme in Scotland that achieved savings of £11 million from 7,900 older people and an improvement in their reported quality of life; a community alarm service in Birmingham that showed a substantial return on investment and reduced residential care need; and telecare schemes for frail older people in north-west Surrey, which showed that telecare focused on safety and security reduced the number of people entering residential care by 11 per cent. in the fifth year after implementation.
	Those are not necessarily reablement examples. It is important for us to consider these preventive opportunities on their merits, through evaluation, and to implement them as part of a proactive public health service. I am surprised at the narrowness of the Government's approach to reablement alone. I am also uncertain as to why they see it as necessary to link access to free personal care to an obligation previously to have agreed to a reablement process.
	As I mentioned, partnership is clearly a necessary part of the consensus that we now need to pursue. From my point of view, that includes local government. Frankly, central Government should treat local government as a partner, which means consulting on such approaches and saying to local government, "On average, across the country, you are paying 40 per cent. of the cost of adult social care. We will treat you as a partner and discuss how we will reform this for the longer term, recognising that council tax payers and their elected representatives provide a substantial proportion of the funding, and in many local authorities more than 50 per cent. of the funding, for social care."
	In those circumstances, it is outrageous that the Government published a Green Paper in July and then said something completely different in September, the implication of which was that local government would simply have to pay up or be taken to court.

John Hayes: Surely my hon. Friend is not suggesting that the Secretary of State has neither sought nor received representations from local authorities? It is inconceivable that he would move ahead with such speed without showing that diligence, for, as my hon. Friend suggests, this will have considerable repercussions for local authorities of all political flavours.

Andrew Lansley: Just to help my hon. Friend, I should say for the record that he speaks in an ironic fashion-and so the record will show. I do not know whether the Secretary of State had any choice in the matter, and I am not sure that the Prime Minister intended that local authorities would have much choice.
	The consultation has gone out. It is not about whether the Bill should be introduced or its principles; nor is it based on its economic modelling. It is not based on the underlying argumentation. The consultation is based on a practical question: if the Government are to distribute money for this purpose, is it best to do it on this measure of need, or that measure of the number of older people with particular characteristics? That question is perfectly reasonable; it just assumes that local authorities have no say whatever in whether the service should be provided or how they should exercise discretion about it.
	It seems to me that a consensus is available, if the Government wish to proceed on the basis of consensus. There is a consensus on the necessity for prevention and preventive processes. Therefore, we agree that reablement should indeed form part of these proposals, but it should not be the only preventive measure. There is a consensus on personalisation, but much more needs to be done. We see access to cash benefits as an essential part of that. There is a need for partnership-in our view, a partnership with local government, with discretion for local government in deciding how council tax payers' money is used. That is essential. The Green Paper itself says that if elected representatives are to decide how council tax payers' money should be used, they must have some discretion in that. From our point of view, that partnership should also include the opportunity for people to protect their home and their assets through a voluntary process of insuring against those risks.
	Does the Bill provide any of those things? Not too many. I say that the Bill might be flawed because its stated purpose is to provide free personal care beyond the six-week point. I did not notice the Secretary of State explaining the Bill in these terms, but let us get to this point. The Government are proposing virtually to abolish consideration in Committee, so we might as well have some of that debate now.
	The Government propose the abolition of the six-week limit on the time during which free personal care can be provided at home. Simply removing the limit would allow free personal care to be provided to people whether they were at home or in long-term residential care, but the Government have introduced a further restriction in clause 1(2), whose effect is that this will not apply
	"to a person living in accommodation that an establishment provides to the person together with the care".
	The effect of that is to exclude people living in long-term residential care who receive both accommodation and care together.
	The Government argue in the explanatory notes that the restriction means that people living in care homes will not get access to personal care. I put a perfectly reasonable question to the Secretary of State, which he did not satisfactorily answer: why are people who go into long-term residential care with high care needs to be discriminated against in this way, compared with people who stay at home? None the less, we shall leave that question on one side.
	For the sake of argument, let us say that there is a legitimate distinction to be drawn. However, the Government then say, "But people who live in sheltered accommodation or extra care housing are not to be excluded." We have arrived at the position where they say, "Why is this so?" On extra care housing, the explanatory notes state:
	"The accommodation and care provided in such accommodation are not provided together but under separate arrangements made by the individual."
	Fine. We know what is going to happen, do we not? As soon as legislation of this kind is introduced, large numbers of care services providers that currently make provision by way of a single contract with people-one that provides accommodation and care together-will suddenly find it necessary, no doubt for business reasons, to provide different, separate contracts for accommodation and for care services.
	Providers will say to the Government, "If people are in extra care housing and they have two contracts, one for care and one for accommodation, they are eligible for free personal care that pays for their personal care needs. I am a care provider. I have a contract for accommodation and a contract for care services. I want exactly the same services provided to me." For the life of me, I cannot see how that evident flaw in the legislation can be reconciled. At best, we will end up with an enormous distortion to the care market, with large numbers of care providers recreating their services so as to distinguish between accommodation and care.

Stephen Ladyman: I am keen to help the hon. Gentleman reconcile that point, because I am keen to promote extra care accommodation. With extra care accommodation, the individual lives in their own home, as either a tenant or the owner of that property; they do not live in somebody else's home and receive care. If it were possible for people to change the premise on which they lived in residential care in order to achieve the same objective, they would have been doing that all along, in order to avoid having the value of their property taken into account when their care needs are assessed.

Andrew Lansley: No, I am sorry, but I just do not accept that that is the case. I have visited extra care accommodation, and it is perfectly clear that many people are there on the basis of tenancies. The whole point of extra care is that as the years progress, so the accommodation that people live in can shift in that complex. They might begin living in their home, as it were, in extra care housing, but as time goes on and their care needs become critical, they may find that adaptations are made or they might even move to different accommodation in that extra care development. The point is that it is perfectly obvious that people who are trying to access free personal care will restructure their arrangements in order to try to make that happen.

Stephen Ladyman: I think that the hon. Gentleman is talking about a specific type of accommodation-usually a retirement village-where, instead of buying a particular property, people buy an equity stake that allows them to move around. However, in the vast majority of extra care accommodation, people are either leaseholders or tenants in a wider property. If he doubts me, I am quite happy to take him round a whole slew of such properties, so that he can see the benefits of extra care and become a convert to such accommodation.

Andrew Lansley: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands what I am saying. I am not disputing the benefits of extra care housing. What I am disputing is the fact that, in their contrivance that free personal care will be available to people with critical care needs who live in extra care housing, the Government, whether intentionally or not, are creating a potential loophole for people who are currently in long-term residential care, who would not be regarded as being in extra care housing. They will inevitably restructure their arrangements at the point at which they enter care in order to make themselves eligible for free personal care, by distinguishing the accommodation element from the care element. The Bill does nothing to prevent that from happening. That seems to be an obvious flaw in the legislation.
	The Bill is not well thought through, but is it well costed? Let us have a look at its impact assessment, which has one or two obvious flaws. On page 2, it manages to state that the average annual costs and benefits are exactly the same-£670 million-even though the total benefits are calculated as being £454 million more. Given that the Government are arguing-on the first page of the impact assessment-that the total benefits are greater than the costs, one would have thought that the average annual benefit would therefore be greater than the cost. That might be a simple error in how the impact assessment was transcribed, but as the care services Minister, signed it and the error was on page 2 of what he signed, he might also be able to explain why that should be the case.
	It is also estimated in the impact assessment-based on what evidence we do not know-that 10 per cent. of the flow into residential care will switch to home care. On page 15 of the impact assessment, the net flow into residential care is stated as being 178,000 older people a year, 10 per cent. of which would be 17,800. However, in the table calculating the costs by reference to the number of people who would access free personal care, the figure referred to by the Government is not 17,800 a year, but just 2,384. Such a large difference in the number of claimants would mean an extra £77 million a year to provide free personal care that has not been taken into account.
	In calculating the benefits of the policy in the impact assessment, the Government admit that most of the cost is a straight transfer payment from taxpayers for the benefit of those who have previously paid for care themselves. The calculation of the benefit of that is based on two elements. The first is the equity assumed to be gained by transferring cost from the general population to older people who fall into, on average, lower segments of income distribution in the population; therefore, there is a distributional equity gain over the population as a whole. Unfortunately, the calculations in the impact assessment are mathematically incorrect. They also use the upper weightings of the Treasury Green Book, rather than the mid-point averages. If those two things were corrected-the mathematics and the use of the mid-point averages-the overall benefit of that element would be reduced to zero.
	The second element is the assumption that people benefit because they would pay extra for certainty, in the same way that they pay extra for the certainty reflected in an insurance premium. In the impact assessment, the Government use US health insurance as a proxy for UK personal care insurance. They therefore assert that the medical loss ratio on health insurance would apply equally in this country to personal care insurance. Both points are wrong. There is no justification for making the assumption that health insurance is treated by people in the same way as personal care insurance. We know that that is so here, because we do not have a market for social care insurance; as things stand, people are not willing to pay for that certainty, whereas large numbers of people are willing to pay a premium for medical insurance in circumstances where, frankly, they often do not need to.
	The difference between health insurance and personal care insurance is perfectly obvious, but in any case, the Government assume in their Green Paper that only 20 per cent. of people would pay voluntarily for care insurance. If we simply reduced the benefit to 20 per cent.-at the moment, the Government have assumed that everybody getting personal care would have valued it as if they had been willing to pay for personal care insurance-the overall benefit in the calculation would be reduced from £365 million to £51 million. The overall effect of reducing those benefits-the benefits that justified the cost-benefit analysis in the impact assessment-is that the total costs exceed the benefits. In addition, when the £402 million opportunity cost of raising the taxation required to fund the measure is taken into account, as it should be, the policy has a significant cost in excess of the benefit.
	Of course, the care services Minister was no doubt untroubled by any of those thoughts when he signed the impact assessment on 22 November. I am sure, therefore, that he will wish to disclose in full to the House his scrutiny of the impact assessment in responding to this debate. If he does not do so, he will doubtless want to do so in response to the freedom of information request I made today, asking him what questions he asked on the impact assessment before he signed it.
	This is a short Bill, but it requires amendment to become much more flexible if it is to help in the longer-term process of delivering social care reform. It needs to accommodate insurance-based solutions. Amendments are also required to make much clearer the range of preventive measures and solutions that can be provided by local authorities. As I have said, the Bill also seems to have a serious potential flaw, in that it would distort the care market. It therefore also needs to show flexibility regarding domiciliary care and long-term residential care.
	Members of the Labour party in another place have been pretty critical of the Bill. Lord Lipsey said:
	"There was this Green Paper process going on, and then came along what somebody somewhere dubbed the Exocet:"-
	I am not sure who dubbed it the Exocet; perhaps he did-
	"the Prime Minister's conference speech in which he proposed free personal care for all at home...the suspicion is born that it owed less to a careful policy consideration and more to the natural desire of all politicians to have a nice announcement to put in their conference speech."-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 26 November 2009; Vol. 715, c. 546.]
	In the same debate, Lord Warner said:
	"I do not see it as likely to be a particularly useful stepping stone to the wider reforms that the Government were...engaged on. It is not thought through and, to many people, it looks like a political gimmick."-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 26 November 2009; Vol. 715, c. 541.]
	The Government could of course close their ears to criticism now and use their majority to push the Bill through the House of Commons, but it would then get bogged down in the House of Lords. Alternatively, they could make time available to work with us in this place to try to make the Bill a genuine bridge towards the reform of long-term care and support, to make it enabling rather than prescriptive on the structure of care and funding, and to allow it to promote a portable assessment of need and financial support, with a continuing central role for local authorities in commissioning and funding social care services in their areas. It is clear that local authorities and the NHS must be partners in this, and that they must enable individuals to exercise greater control. The last thing we need is what the  Health Service Journal described last week as a takeover grab by the NHS for adult social care, or for primary care trusts to become responsible for all the commissioning activity and all the budgets.
	The Bill needs amendment and further consideration in this place. We will not divide the House on its principle, but it must be made flexible. That means it should be given time in Committee and on Report in this House not only to investigate what it actually means-the need for that is becoming more evident as we ask questions-but to amend it. The programme motion seems offensive in terms of parliamentary scrutiny. The Government seem to be making the assumption that, because the Prime Minister stood up at the Labour party conference and announced something, it should be passed through this House without scrutiny or question. The Prime Minister does not control the other place, but it is an abuse of this House for the Government to behave in that way.
	The Bill is required to be considered in Committee before its Report stage, and it needs to be reported to the House in the normal way, with an opportunity for further amendment and debate after adequate further reflection. So, although we shall not divide the House on the principle of the Bill, we shall divide on the programme motion later this evening.

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) described this as a short Bill, but it seemed to require him to make an inordinately long speech. In fact, his speech reminded me of the restaurant at the end of the universe in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", especially when he talked about the Conservatives' proposals to pay for residential care costs by putting £8,000 into a fund that would somehow make it grow in real terms to over £50,000. In "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", customers paid the exorbitant cost of their meal at the restaurant at the end of the universe by putting one penny into a bank account which earned compound interest over an almost infinite amount of time. By the time they had reached the end of the universe, they had amassed enough money to pay for their meal. There seems to be no way in which £8,000 can be put into any sort of fund and increase to £50,000 in real terms over 20 years. If the hon. Gentleman could tell me where to find such a fund, I would be very grateful. I would certainly put some of my savings into it as soon as possible.
	The hon. Gentleman was right to say that, if the free personal care that we are discussing involved the entirety of personal care, it would be unaffordable. The Bill is not proposing to provide all personal care free to everyone, however. It proposes to provide a very small subset of people with free personal care. It proposes to provide the people with the most urgent and the most serious needs with relief now. To that extent, the Bill is a first step on the road to producing the National Care Service that the Government have talked about, and which I fully support. The fact that it is a first step, however, does not mean that it should not be carefully considered, or that we should not know anything about the other steps involved. I shall make a few comments about those in a moment.
	I congratulate the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), and the Government on some of the elements that they have identified, especially in the explanatory notes, rather than in the Bill itself, as the Bill is a rather simple mechanism designed to achieve its ends. The Government recognise explicitly the benefits of extra care accommodation, of telecare and of encouraging independent living. Members on both sides of the House ought to be able to agree that those are laudable objectives.
	I have been campaigning on extra care accommodation for some time. Last Thursday, I attended the conference of the Association of Retirement Housing Managers, many of whom promote extra care accommodation. We need to recognise its benefits in reducing the cost of delivery of care and improving the welfare of older people. I encourage the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, who seemed completely to misunderstand the benefits of such care, to give further consideration to that mechanism of providing accommodation and care to older people.
	There is one key point that I want to put to my hon. Friend the Minister. The subject was also mentioned by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, and I agree with him on this. We need to understand where this first step fits into the totality of the reforms that we are ultimately going to have to agree on. I want to highlight a concern relating to the three funding models in the Green Paper that are being actively considered. They are the so-called partnership model, the voluntary insurance model and the comprehensive model. I can see how the arrangements proposed in the Bill would fit with the partnership model, in that that model explicitly says that the state will provide part of people's personal care. I can also see how they would fit with the comprehensive model, which would involve everyone having to take out an insurance policy.
	My concern is that the arrangements in the Bill might not fit very well with the insurance model. People would have to assess the risk when deciding whether to take out insurance. They would have to strike a balance and decide whether it was worth their while to take the risk, or whether they should take some of their capital and buy an insurance policy with it. When there was no free personal care and it was means-tested except for the poorest people, the risk assessment would have come out in favour of taking up an insurance scheme if one became available. However, if we say that the state is going to provide free personal care for the most needy, I worry that that might tip the risk balance the other way, and that people might decide to take a chance. They would know that, if their needs became particularly serious later in life, the state would step in, so I do not see how the proposals would fit in with the insurance model.
	That is important because we need to find a way of leveraging some part of people's personal equity into meeting the cost of social care in the future. As we have all said, free personal care provided entirely by the state would be unaffordable. We therefore have to ask ourselves how we are going to leverage more money into the process. It could be done through higher taxes, or by finding ways of encouraging people to put part of their equity into the process. My favourite way of doing it, which I do not think any party is proposing at the moment, would be to use a hypothecated inheritance tax to meet the cost of social care. Instead of getting into the rather unfortunate bidding war over who was going to do the most to reduce inheritance tax liabilities, I would have proposed keeping part of the tax back to pay for social care. We could then have provided a much more comprehensive system. Such a tax would also be progressive, in that it would be related to people's wealth.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend says, as so many Members do, that free long-term care is unaffordable, but that assumption is based on the present levels of tax. If we raised taxes and redistributed a bit more, it would be affordable. It is a question of whether we decide that it is affordable, not whether it is affordable objectively.

Stephen Ladyman: I accept that it is objectively true that if we raised tax, we could afford it. My hon. Friend and I have had the debate many times before as to whether people would accept that level of tax increases, particularly if it were income tax or taxes on earnings. I personally do not believe that they would; I know that he is a strong advocate of the case that they would accept it if they knew that it was going clearly into social care-that is the difference of opinion we have. That is exactly why my preferred solution to the problem would be a hypothecated inheritance tax. I think that that would be far more acceptable to people at large than extra tax on earnings, but that is a debate for another day.
	When the Minister winds up the debate, I want to hear how he sees this Bill fitting into the wider reform. If he cannot tell us today because he is not ready to produce the White Paper, he needs at least to give us the assurance that, when he does produce it, it will clearly say how the measures in the Bill are going to fit in.
	The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire raised some points with which I had some sympathy. One is the exclusion from the Bill of personal care costs if people go into residential accommodation. If we are going to pay people's personal care costs if they have the most serious needs, I do not see why we would want to exclude meeting those costs in residential care. We should not go down the route of paying people's board and lodgings, as I believe that we all have a fundamental duty to contribute to our board and lodgings, irrespective of the level of our care needs, but we should eventually meet the element of residential care costs to do with personal care. I realise that that is excluded from the Bill, but when we produce the White Paper and move on to the next stage of reform, I encourage the Minister to indicate how that need is going to be met.
	Carers also need to be taken into consideration. As I said in an intervention, under the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003, anyone making an assessment of someone's care needs also has to carry out a carer's assessment. It seems to me that if somebody is receiving personal care in their home and part of that care is coming from a voluntary carer, and if as part of the care plan that the Secretary of State talked about, the need for that carer to have some respite from time to time is identified, I would hope that we could include the cost of that respite within the ambit of the Bill.
	The issue of benefits is certainly going to be raised. I have spoken to the Minister and to the Secretary of State about my concerns. Frankly, I would deal with that by allowing people to continue to receive attendance allowance, and not reform it. I have previously described attendance allowance as the ultimate direct payment, since it is not means-tested and provides cash that can be spent however the person wants to meet their care needs, as long as they go over a particular care threshold. Because of that, it is very valuable. For people who have saved and have some income, as a result of which they are excluded from pension credit, it can be a godsend if a non-means-tested benefit is available to them.
	Having said that, I understand the Government's position that people cannot receive money twice, so if they are having all their care needs met, they cannot also expect to have attendance allowance on top of it. What we could do, of course, is continue to give people attendance allowance, but top it up to the level needed to meet their care assessments. In that way, we could maintain attendance allowance and meet the full cost of people's personal care, which is the aim of the Bill.

Jacqui Lait: I just want to put to the hon. Gentleman the thought that the benefit of attendance allowance is that it can be spent on what would not necessarily be regarded as part of a care package, but would immeasurably contribute towards somebody's well-being. For instance, if a keen gardener became unable to continue gardening, they could pay for a gardener and enhance their own satisfaction at seeing the lawn cut, which might keep them psychologically on an even keel.

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. That is why I call attendance allowance the ultimate direct payment: it is cash to meet people's care needs however they want to meet them-and they could meet them through telecare; they could meet them through providing money for a carer; they could even use it to save up to provide respite care and pay it to a voluntary carer or a family member. As I say, it is theirs to do with as they like; for that reason, it is an incredibly powerful benefit.
	I take slight issue with how the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire put it. If the Government chose to pass the value of the attendance allowance to the local council to meet someone's care needs, other legislation that we have at the moment means that someone can simply ask their local council to have their care needs met by a direct payment, rather than with direct care. In other words, they would get the cash back by another means if they wanted to go through that route. My argument is: why go through that route? Why not just leave the attendance allowance in place, with all its benefits, and top it up to the level of free personal care? I hope that the Government will ultimately come to that conclusion.
	In terms of how the money is to be provided to people to meet their care needs, I hope the norm will be that it should be provided in terms of a direct payment that they can spend how they want to meet their care needs the way that they want, which raises the question, of course, of how it will be assessed-whether it will be assessed by the normal processes councils go through at the moment when costing someone's care plan, or whether it will be some sort of flat-rate payment. Although a flat-rate payment might be simple, I would certainly not want to choose that particular route.
	The Government could have met their objectives in several ways, I guess. They could have had a much more complex Bill, which would clearly not have been passed before the general election, so it would not have given people in the most urgent categories of need the care that they need in the time scale that we are talking about. They could have done it as they have done by essentially putting the onus on local authorities to decide the care package. There was a third choice, which I do not know whether the Minister considered. That was to alter the criteria for NHS continuing care-bringing those criteria down to include the category of people with the most serious needs, so that the funds would effectively have come through the national health service.
	The Minister has chosen the route that he has chosen for good or ill, but I would like to suggest one way of achieving flexibility in the arrangements and perhaps even a better outcome for people. At the moment, local councils and local national health services can voluntarily choose to set up a care trust to manage the care of older people, in which case both parties put money together, which can be spent as the care trust decides. That gets over the problem that there are certain legal limitations on what the NHS can spend money on. Equally, there are certain legal limitations on what local councils can spend money on, but those limitations do not exist for a care trust. If everyone has put the money in together, it can be spent in the best way possible for the people concerned.
	At the moment, that is a voluntary arrangement for older people; it is not a voluntary arrangement for children, as we have reached a position where we insist on children's trusts being created to manage the funds from all the various agencies on behalf of children. I have never quite understood why we have not gone the next step and insisted on the creation of care trusts throughout England, which would also help to leverage in some extra money, I suspect, from the national health service, as well as from local government. It would give us considerable benefits in implementing this type of care plan.

Christopher Fraser: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some councils would be better placed than others to find the money through their own provisions, so there is a possibility that these measures as presented by the Government could lead to a postcode lottery?

Stephen Ladyman: I certainly think that there is a risk. One of the risks could be reduced, depending on how the Government decide to distribute the money that is going to be made available. I think that it was the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) who asked whether the money was going to be distributed through the normal local government formula or on the basis of need. If the Government were to choose the number of older people in a particular local authority area as a good proxy for the level of need in that area and distribute the money on that basis, I suspect that they might find that there were far fewer problems. That having been said, we all know that eligibility criteria are different in different local authority areas and charging regimes are different in different local authority areas.
	The only local government funding that is not ring-fenced is funding for adult social services. That used to apply to all forms of social services funding, but the Children Act 2004 effectively took the children's money away and put it into a ring-fenced fund. A local authority can only make up its own mind how much of its money to spend when that money is for adult social care, which is why many authorities choose to spend it in different ways.
	Let me give a particularly bad example. When my local authority, Kent county council, decided that it needed to find several hundred thousand pounds to fund its own propaganda television channel, it increased charges for older people's care. It can raid the fund and get away with it because it is a Conservative council, and because the fund is not ring-fenced. Perhaps we should consider reforming that arrangement as part of our overall reform of adult social care.
	Having said all that, I should add that the Government have made it clear that the Bill represents only a first step towards the reform that we all seek-the first small part of the journey towards the creation of a National Care Service. Many questions remain to be answered, and we need to understand much more about the way in which the Bill will work once it has been implemented. However, to the extent that it delivers some urgent care for a desperately unhappy group of our constituents at this moment, and allows them to gain some relief while we deal with all these tortuous processes-

Tobias Ellwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen Ladyman: I am about to end my speech, but I will give way briefly.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way just as he is beginning his final crescendo. He says that the Bill is a "first step", thus suggesting that there are other steps to follow. Given the approaching election, and given that the first step was, in fact, taken back in 1997, when does he expect the next step to be presented to the Chamber?

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman is trying to trivialise a serious issue. He may wish to visit the House of Commons Library and conduct some research on the steps that the Government have already taken in reforming social care. In particular, I suggest that he read a seminal document on the subject: "Independence, Well-being and Choice", a Green Paper on the reform of adult social care. Modesty forbids me to tell the House which Minister was responsible for it, but it sets out exactly the action that we need to take in order to reform what the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire identified as the key issue: the quality and level of provision of social care. How are we to make the whole process more affordable? It started with that Green Paper. The process that the Government have gone through, the consultation, the Green Paper and the "Big Care Debate", allow us to create a structure- [Interruption]-in which perhaps- [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) must bear in mind the rules governing debate in the House.

Stephen Ladyman: That process allows us perhaps to create a framework within which we can proceed to at least a partial consensus. Whatever we decide to do will have to last through Government after Government. Even if we assume that at some time in the far distant future the Conservative party will win a general election, the consensus will have to survive.
	The Government initiated that first stage. I expect further reform to be highlighted in the White Paper that I hope we will see in the new year. I want to see a Labour Government make reform of the funding of social care and implementation of the White Paper their highest priority immediately after we win the general election in the next few months.

Norman Lamb: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman). What he said towards the end of his speech was absolutely right: the reform has to last. What worries many of us, however, is that the Bill may not be moving us in the right direction.
	The hon. Gentleman raised a number of legitimate and serious concerns about aspects of the Bill, and made a number of other good points. I agree with him about the value of care trusts and bringing together health and social care organisations. There have been some exciting developments, particularly in places such as Torbay where the integration of services appears to be improving as a result of the pooling of resources.
	It is good that, at long last, we are discussing this most urgent of priorities. The Secretary of State made the fair point that much had happened over the past 12 or 13 years, and it is true that in some respects the position has improved. The right actions have been taken in respect of the personalisation agenda, for instance. Useful ideas have been developed through a partnership between central Government and local authorities.

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman has referred to significant developments over the past 12 or 13 years. Does he agree that the most significant of all was the report of the royal commission on long-term care, which has been universally ignored?

Norman Lamb: I was about to add that although some good things have happened, since the commission reported there has been inertia, and deterioration and decay of the system have affected many people. If we are honest, we will admit that we all know that many elderly people are not receiving sufficient care or-as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) pointed out-care of sufficient quality.
	Over the past 12 or 13 years, we have seen an escalation in fees and charges and a tightening of the criteria. Far fewer people now access care from local authorities. All that is evidence of a deterioration of the system and a growing crisis for many vulnerable people. That is why our priority is to address the problem in a way that will last: to produce reform that is supported by a consensus, and is sustainable.
	The reason why the Liberal Democrats have moved away from the position of the royal commission-we will be quite up-front about this-is connected with that question of sustainability, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for South Thanet. Given demographic change and the ageing population, the cost of genuinely free personal care for all would be enormous. We should also bear in mind the care needs of not just elderly people but younger adults. More people with substantial care needs are surviving, and the total cost of that is huge. Our conclusion is that there should be a partnership between state and individuals, rather than the state's bearing the whole burden.

Kelvin Hopkins: The members of the royal commission subsequently made estimates of cost which were, at the time, the equivalent of 1 per cent. above the standard rate now, and 1.5 per cent. above the standard rate by 2050. The cost may even be double that. I have asked many people whether they would prefer the fear of not being cared for in their old age or a significant increase in tax to ensure that everyone is cared for, which is the basis of the national health service.

Norman Lamb: I respect the hon. Gentleman's position. The increase would be significantly more than that at first. There is a perverse effect that one ought to consider. At a time when public finances are very tight-this is something that the Wanless commission specifically identified-a significant amount of public money is being given to some very wealthy people who could choose to fund at least part of their care themselves. I have severe doubts about whether we would be using public money to the best advantage by giving substantial sums to the very wealthy, which would be the effect of the policy that the hon. Gentleman advocates.
	We will not divide the House on the Bill; we will support it at this stage to facilitate debate. We will vote with the Conservatives on the programme motion, because it is important that the Bill is fully debated and that there are no time constraints. I shall deal with the origins of the Bill first, and then its impact and where we go from here.
	The Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, made the point that the Bill came out of the blue in the Prime Minister's speech to the Labour party conference. It is stretching language to the extreme to describe it as a bridge to a comprehensive reform of the care system. If it genuinely were a bridge, the Green Paper, which took many months to produce, would have referred to a first bridge to a new system, yet it was entirely silent on this unexpected proposal. The Green Paper was long overdue, but it was deliberative and consultative-it went through the process of consulting all interested parties-and, ultimately, it was quite well received across the health spectrum, and particularly by groups representing those with greatest need. Then the Bill came completely out of the blue.
	In politics, the most devastating criticism tends to come from people on one's own side, and that is especially so when they have expertise in the subject under discussion. That is true of the comments of Lord Warner and Lord Lipsey on this Bill. Lord Warner said of the proposals:
	"There has been no proper impact assessment, and no data to show how this would work."
	Lord Lipsey was, of course, a member of the royal commission to which the Secretary of State referred. He said:
	"I think it is a bad policy but also a very bad way to do policy just to find a nice highlight for your Labour Party conference speech."
	That is pretty devastating criticism. He also said that it was "a bit of gimmick", and that he hopes that the Prime Minister
	"will reflect on whether this proposal is in the national interest or merely designed to achieve party political interests."

Stephen Ladyman: I cannot stop myself pointing out to the hon. Gentleman that Lord Lipsey was the member of the royal commission who wrote the dissenting report that the Government adopted, and that from the date it was produced until now the Liberal Democrats have been telling us that he did not know what he was talking about.

Norman Lamb: Lord Lipsey is a Labour peer who was chosen to sit on that commission and who until now has taken a position that is entirely consistent with the Labour Government's. The Labour Government have now chosen to move away from his position.  [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) says, that makes this measure even more devastating.

Kelvin Hopkins: Was Lord Lipsey not put on that royal commission at a late stage by Downing street, in order to create a minority report and thereby to prevent the commission's findings from being unanimous, and that he is now worrying that the Government will backslide on his minority report?

Norman Lamb: I have no idea, but I would not be surprised, given the way this Government operate. One is left with the sense that this is an utterly cynical move by the Government.
	Not only people such as Lord Warner and Lord Lipsey have criticised the Bill. Niall Dickson, the highly respected chief executive of the King's Fund, who is leaving that organisation after several years of service, has said that these latest proposals
	"have been hastily put together and appear to cut across the options set out in the government's own Green Paper."
	He did not see them as a bridge to the future, either, adding that:
	"After all, the government has only just finished consulting us on the very different proposals set out in that document."
	He went on to talk about the "danger of perverse incentives", which is another point that the hon. Member for South Thanet rightly raised.

Stephen O'Brien: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the economic modelling that lay behind the Green Paper might not have been made available, in part because it had to be re-scrambled and meshed with the unbridgeable announcement made at the Labour party conference?

Norman Lamb: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and I suspect that his assumption may well be correct. Ultimately, this is law-making of the worst possible kind; it is from the "back of the fag packet" school of legislating. It is all about electioneering, but it is not about serious reform, which is what we all ought to be engaged in.

Christopher Fraser: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the delivery of these health care services in rural constituencies such as ours, where the dynamics are quite different from those of inner-city areas, has not been addressed at all in this Bill?

Norman Lamb: That has neither been addressed in the Bill, nor been addressed for a very long time. The costs of delivering care in rural areas are often much higher and, to mention just one difficulty, it is often very difficult to recruit care workers, so the hon. Gentleman makes an important point.
	This whole process raises some serious questions about who is ultimately responsible for the proposal. Given that there was nothing about it in the Green Paper, did it emanate from the Department of Health or from No. 10 Downing street? How long had the team at the Department of Health been working on the proposal prior to that conference speech? Does the Minister wish to intervene, because I would be very interested to learn when that information was made known to the team working on the Green Paper? When were they informed?
	I turn to the impact of the proposal. I completely support the Bill's measures on reablement. It makes absolute sense for much more to be done to prevent ill health in the first place, and to ensure that resources are put into maintaining people better in their own homes, but are the measures consistent with the Green Paper objectives? The Green Paper stresses the need to make the
	"best use of public money to provide a joined-up, consistent and fair care and support system".
	I strongly endorse that objective. It goes on to say:
	"We can use the taxpayers' money that is already in the system to provide everyone"-
	not just one group of people-
	"with some care. We believe that that should be the starting point".
	That is interesting, because that appears to be a very different starting point as a bridge to a reformed system. The Green Paper goes on to say that
	"any system must be a partnership between the state and individuals".
	The Green Paper also rules out funding the new system from taxation as too heavy a burden on people of working age. I appreciate that the intention is not to provide care for all, but for the Bill to go in that direction appears to be completely contrary to the intentions of the Green Paper. Therefore, the Bill fails on all these tests: it is not joined up; it is not consistent with the Green Paper; it helps one group, but not all; it is not a partnership approach; and it is funded by general taxation, contrary to the intentions of the Green Paper.

Greg Mulholland: The hon. Member for South Thanet described the people who would be helped as a very small subsection of the population. That is a useful phrase, as it is not consistent with how the Bill is being presented.

Norman Lamb: The hon. Member for South Thanet hit the nail on the head, because the number of people who will benefit is much lower than the headline number of 400,000 of which the Government have sought to convince the public.
	I want to deal with the potential perverse effects of the Bill. It is a partial solution, and the risk of implementing a partial solution was highlighted by Niall Dickson. Andrew Harrop of Age Concern and Help the Aged also specifically highlighted the risk that the Bill will push councils into getting people into care homes, thereby avoiding the cost of caring for people at home. According to Andrew Harrop, there is the alternative risk that councils will argue that someone's need is not critical-that as a way of avoiding responsibility they will find that people fall below the level.
	There is also a risk that the Bill will take money away from some vulnerable groups in order to give it to a particular group of vulnerable people and that we will end up with a costly and demeaning process of disputes about whether someone's care needs are "critical". We are likely to see a bureaucratic and time-consuming process of social workers carrying out assessments to determine whether someone's needs are "substantial" or "critical".

Kelvin Hopkins: Could all this not be overcome by providing long-term care, either at home or in care homes, free of charge-just like the national health service? All the cost and the problem would thus disappear. We are talking about money and not about care at the moment.

Norman Lamb: The hon. Gentleman is right in one sense, because he is advocating a comprehensive system that applies to everybody; when we start applying a process to one group of people, we create perverse effects and bureaucracy in determining whether somebody falls into or outside a category. He rightly identifies the need for a comprehensive solution.
	The hon. Member for South Thanet also accurately identified the risk of a disincentive for people to take out insurance. It is almost inevitable that insurance will be part of the overall solution that we seek to achieve-if we can build a consensus. The Bill inevitably amounts to a disincentive for people to take out insurance to protect against potential need. Who benefits from the measure? Remarkably, paragraph 5.21 of the impact assessment identifies the group that will benefit most as the "wealthiest older people". It is bizarre in the extreme and it is extraordinary that the Government have chosen a partial solution-rather than a comprehensive one-that, according to their own impact assessment, benefits most the wealthiest older people.
	There is also uncertainty about the cost and the number of people who will benefit. The impact assessment is riddled with uncertainty about the cost, and the Local Government Association has highlighted the point. First, the impact of take-up by people who are funding their own care is unknown; we do not know how many of the people who are currently funding their own care would come into the system. All we have is an estimate-that is all it can be. The Government say that they are confident that the figures are accurate, but they have no basis for that confidence. The impact of behaviour change with regard to residential care is unknown. The Conservative spokesman highlighted that the figures in the impact assessment are inconsistent with each other on that point. We do not know how many people will move from residential care to being cared for at home to take advantage of the offer of free care.
	The data on the number of those who are classified as "critical" and the relative distribution of their needs and disabilities are not collected centrally, so again we have no idea how many people we are talking about. We also do not know how many people are already receiving reablement. We do not know the proportion of those who after receiving reablement would not require care. Thus, the central assumption on cost and numbers in the impact assessment is uncertain. If the Government are wrong in their assessment of the total cost, what would be the consequences? We know from the consultation paper on the regulations that there is a fixed total sum available, so who would lose out if the figures were wrong? Will the criteria be tightened even more-beyond the calculation of "critical" need? Something has to give and the Government have not said what that would be.
	The LGA also raises serious concern about the potential for local government to fund its £250 million a year contribution. It is already making substantial efficiency savings, regardless of the £250 million that would be required. We know that over the past decade social care has been the poor relation of the health service in funding increases. At each spending round the health service receives a substantially greater real-terms increase than social care, and now the Government expect social care to come up with £250 million of efficiency savings to contribute to the cost of this measure. We have no way of knowing whether the system is capable of delivering that sort of sum. There is a real risk that it will amount to robbing Peter to pay Paul, taking care away from one vulnerable person to provide it to another whose financial resources may mean that they are actually better able to pay. The Secretary of State has today conceded that the total number of people who will benefit is 110,000-not the 400,000 that has been talked about. As the hon. Member for South Thanet said, the Bill benefits a very small subset of people.
	On specific issues relating to the Bill, I would be grateful if in winding up the Minister would deal with concerns that some groups have about the meaning of "critical". Will meeting just one of the critical areas, as defined, be enough to allow someone to qualify? What is the meaning of the "significant help" needed for the four daily activities? There is surely a need for greater clarity on that. Sense, the organisation representing deafblind people, refers to the fact that personal care, as defined in the Bill,
	"excludes the type of communicator guide support which is so vital to deafblind people."
	That group is one of the most at risk of having to go into residential care, but it is excluded from help-surely that cannot be justified.
	Where do we go from here? There are serious concerns about the perverse impact that this unsatisfactory measure could have. The most pressing priority is to put in place a comprehensive, sustainable system-one that will last, as has been said-that will guarantee care for those who need it most, funded in a way that is fair and recognising the reality of the public finances. There is an urgent need to build consensus. Any Government coming to power next year, of whichever party or parties, have a massive challenge ahead of them in resolving this issue-such a resolution is overdue. Given the state of public finances, there is a real risk that this issue will be pushed, yet again, into the long grass. Surely we should all commit now to a process to secure a consensus. It is in the interests of any incoming Government that a process is already in place to achieve that. We should establish now-we should not wait until the next Parliament-a cross-party commission with a defined remit of achieving consensus in a tight time scale. Let us just imagine how the public would react if they saw the three main parties agreeing to come together to recognise that this challenge must be faced and must be met without further delay. That is necessary and it is of acute importance, so I urge all sides to agree to a process that secures that consensus on a sustainable system that will last into the future.

Laura Moffatt: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who spoke of things being kicked into the long grass-I suspect that a fair bit of that is occurring on the Opposition Benches to say the least. It is disingenuous for the Opposition to say that they do not intend to vote against the Bill in principle and then to go about trying to take it apart piece by piece and rubbishing it before it can get a head start.
	I thoroughly support the Bill. Of course there are difficulties and issues to clear up, but at the heart of it we need to remember that it is desperately wanted and desperately needed by many people who live in fear of their future. This House has a responsibility to respond to those concerns, and not only to consider the measures carefully, but to ensure that they are put in place.
	I firmly believe that the Bill is an excellent stepping stone to the much greater piece of work that is going on. Frankly, I would have gone straight for the National Care Service and forgotten about the consultation. It feels like motherhood and apple pie to me-like the early days of the NHS-to go ahead and set something up in that spirit. We should be considering social care in the same terms as the NHS. Of course, many people in the Chamber have had the opportunity to spend a lot of time examining the Bill in detail-including how we came to the position that we are now in-but I firmly believe that we need to get back to the principle of worrying about those who, without question, will benefit from it.
	With those people in mind, I want to give a few reasons why we need to buckle down and get the Bill into place. It is not only desirable, but much needed. I was a member of the nursing profession for many years before I was elected to the House of Commons and was deeply aware of those people who, without support and help at home, found themselves in hospital or in social care. There is nothing worse for an acute nurse to know than that somebody for whom they are caring could, with proper support, have been kept at home and had the comfort of knowing that they would be looked after in their own home. For the people for whom this Bill will be most helpful-those with the dementia range of conditions-entering hospital for rehabilitative care is often incredibly damaging. It is confusing and upsetting, families become upset and it is often obvious at that point that it could have been avoided. For that reason alone, and for the many patients whose cases I have in my head who could have avoided admission, I support the Bill.
	I was very interested to hear the Opposition suggest that carers would step away from helping their relatives if such a Bill were passed. Frankly, I found that insulting to carers. Anybody who undertakes that work knows very well that they want to work in partnership with the care services. They want to have time to be on their own and to be able to share their experiences with friends and families, without the constant burden of caring for their loved one. This Bill will help many hundreds of people to live their lives as carers in much more certainty.

Kelvin Hopkins: I think my hon. Friend has answered my point, in a sense, but does she not agree that hundreds of thousands of carers have enormous pressures on them because of elderly relatives who need much more care than they can possibly give and that giving more assistance to them is precisely what we should be doing?

Laura Moffatt: Indeed. I thoroughly concur with those views. That would improve the quality of life not only of the person in receipt of care but of the carers.
	Many authorities are beginning this work already and that is why I do not have the depressed view that we cannot tackle the problem at this point. A year ago, the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), came to launch our well-being programme in Crawley. The local authority has come together with NHS West Sussex to provide excellent care at home-not only education on eating and smoking, but a full service that includes advice on preventing trips at home. I can imagine how much better it will be when we have a more comprehensive home care service for those people.
	This Bill is utterly doable. It is disingenuous to say, "We thoroughly agree with it, but we will now produce 101 reasons why we do not believe that we can move forward." Those who will benefit from the Bill will listen carefully to those words-I shall ensure that they hear them. I hope that with due consideration of the Bill, in a reasonable and timely way, which of course we can achieve with one clause, we will move forward and get it in place. We can then move on to a National Care Service, which will be welcomed wholeheartedly in this country.

Jacqui Lait: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt). I think that the point she was making-I hope that I am correct-was that more people need access to top-quality services to ensure that they stay in their own homes for as long as possible. I do not think that there is any argument in the Chamber about that statement. The question is how we can best get there.
	I am very conscious of the question of whether the Bill is needed at all, given that the best evidence that the Secretary of State could give us concerned the work that is being done on the Isle of Wight. The hon. Lady mentioned what is happening in Crawley, and I am sure that we can all cite cases from our social services departments in which, over the years, they have become more involved in intensive rehabilitation. That shows that these services are already emerging. I often wonder why we need to pass legislation so that people can continue to provide best practice. If it is best practice, and if it is saving local authorities substantial sums of money, it is in their best interests to do it. They do not need the legislative burden that is being imposed.
	Although we agree that there should be better services for personal care delivery, the Bill is next to redundant. We should be moving much more towards deciding-as my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Health pointed out and as the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) implied, too-that there are a range of different ways in which to finance the achievement of better personal care. We would be better off, frankly, doing it comprehensively rather than piecemeal. The Bill has been referred to as a bridge and as a stepping stone, but I suspect that, in the long run, it will go on the statute book and will be ignored, not implemented or will have to be comprehensively reworked, should another care Bill be proposed.
	In one sense, I welcome the debate that we are having on such a short Bill-it is, fundamentally, one clause long. Most of the Opposition's contributions have certainly questioned how effective it will be. I represent a constituency in the London borough of Bromley, which is one of the wealthiest boroughs in London. It has, without doubt, the highest proportion of retired people of all the London boroughs. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said that the Bill will mainly benefit wealthy people, and that is highly likely to happen in my borough. Apart from three main areas where we have genuine deprivation, the rest of the borough is relatively wealthy. People in the borough will have been meeting their needs using their own resources. The flaw of the Bill is, as he pointed out, that people who have been doing that, who might be in great need-I am not saying that they are not, and I sympathise entirely with their need to get proper care-have not been cared for in the public sector, and that the costs of care will therefore run completely out of control.
	I am also concerned that East Sussex-here I declare an interest, because my husband is the leader of East Sussex county council-has a high proportion of retired people. Those people are not, by any means, the wealthy retired. If whatever money that is forthcoming from the Government-from saving on ad campaigns and research money-is distributed according to the local government formula, that will penalise people in counties such as East Sussex that are already suffering because of the perverse nature of the formula. I suspect that the hon. Member for South Thanet could say the same about his part of Thanet, although it is in a very wealthy county. If the money is to be distributed on the basis of the needs of the population, I foresee some squawks from the friends in the north, because it is much more likely that money will go to areas in the south with high numbers of retired people, which are not necessarily Labour controlled-not that much of local government is these days. We foresee perversity emerging in a variety of ways in relation to this one-clause Bill.
	I have been advised by a member of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, who is such a director, that the costings have not been shared with the social services department or with a wider audience and that the estimates of need have not been shared. Estimates are therefore a wild approximation of what the demand, and hence the cost, will be. The Government could find themselves in a position that they do not want to be in of being unable to fund the programme that they have put in place.
	Another area that the Government probably have not worked through properly-my hon. Friend picked up on this point-is the sheer scale of need in relation to the professionals required to deliver the rehabilitation services that everyone is talking about. I use the word "rehabilitation" quite deliberately, as I think that "reablement" is another ghastly politically correct word and that we would be better off using a familiar one.
	There are already insufficient occupational therapists. Anyone who needs, or knows someone who needs, an occupational therapist knows how long people have to wait for one. Anyone who needs physiotherapy knows how long it takes to get a physiotherapy appointment unless they have an immediate medical requirement. We can forget about psychologists, given how long it takes to see one, particularly following the introduction of talking therapies. It will take years to get hold of the professional skills that will be required to deliver the rehabilitation services that we would all like, because we have to recruit professionals from schools, get them through their training and then through what are, in effect, apprenticeships. It is almost an unfair promise to say that comprehensive services will be delivered to elderly people who are in great need, because we will not be able to get those services to such people as they need them.

Stephen Ladyman: I am enjoying the hon. Lady's contribution, and I agree that there is a serious issue with providing those different professionals, but does she agree that we will have to go through that process anyway, irrespective of what reforms we agree in relation to the model for funding social care? We will have to make those changes anyway, so those points are irrelevant to the Bill.

Jacqui Lait: I wish that they were irrelevant. The purpose of the Bill, if I have read the Government right, is to be able to say during the election campaign, "We will deliver to you, from October 2010, these sophisticated services," but those sophisticated services will not exist in the volume that will be required. That is the unfairness implicit in that promise.
	Bed blocking will still be an issue, and the hon. Gentleman has taken me around in a circle back to where I needed to be. Many years ago, we spent endless hours in the Chamber talking about bed blocking. We were talking about it then because assessment processes were not in place. They are now better, and although I would not say that bed blocking is gone, we are not talking about it to the same extent. Also, we now realise that once an elderly person, or someone who is not very mobile, has been in a bed for 48 hours, they will need intensive rehabilitation to get them back into their home. Some of those services are available and are better than they were, but provision certainly is not as comprehensive as the Bill promises. It has, however, shown the need for expansion in the availability of those skills, and we have not addressed that problem.

Stephen Ladyman: The Bill amends the very Act that sorted out bed blocking. It takes the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003 and simply says that we are going to make services do what the Act requires of them for longer than the current six weeks. I agree that the situation is not what the hon. Lady wants it to be and that we need those extra professionals, but the key thing that the Bill does is to say to people who are currently funding their own services that we will fund such services for them in future. It will take a long time to deal with her logistical concerns, but they are not relevant to the Bill.

Jacqui Lait: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting in a mention of the 2003 Act, which he took through Parliament, and I congratulate him on the Act. Let us not get into a long debate about how bed blocking was cured. The point remains that the Bill explicitly promises that from October 2010-only 10 months from now-people's rehabilitation care will be provided for an indeterminate length of time, and the relevant services to do that do not exist. That is the unfairness of the Bill.

Stephen O'Brien: My hon. Friend makes her points extremely powerfully. It seems to me that she is worried about promises being made on this vital service, on which so many people depend, not least given the experience in Scotland, where the capacity to deliver against a promise simply was not available. Therefore, the promise could only be broken because there was not the capacity in the first place. Is that the case?

Jacqui Lait: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My mother benefited from that system when it first came in. Sadly, just after she died, the budgets had to be cut back. I have seen that situation on a practical level. We face a general election in six months, and this is yet another Bill that should be called a "shore up the Labour party vote" Bill. That is what is so distressing about this short Bill.
	I want to hop briefly on to another of my current hobby horses-the programme motion, which I am glad we are voting against tonight. Yet again, we have a demonstration of how the Government have inadvertently ceded to the House of Lords legislative control over the Queen's Speech. It is no longer this Chamber that makes final decisions on legislation, but the House of Lords. I do not find that acceptable. I was not elected to this place to give my job to the House of Lords and I very much hope that in a few months' time when my Government come in they will reverse the process of ceding control to the House of Lords.

Robert Syms: We all know why the current Government, and indeed former Governments, have not moved rapidly on personal care-it is horrendously expensive. If we look for a moment at the economic situation, we see that the country is accumulating a large debt. If we look at the pension situation, we see that people are living longer than ever and if we look at the care situation, we see that because people are living longer and are frail, there is potentially a large bill for the Government, local authorities and individuals.
	There is no easy answer. Earlier in the debate, one or two Members suggested that we should just lump the costs on to taxation and that might do the job, but of course the British tax system tends to hit people at a lower and poorer level than is sensible. All the surveys on poverty show that young families with children fall into the bottom poverty quartiles-at least for a period, when one parent cannot work.
	It would have been far better had the Green Paper in July been allowed to take its course and if we had accepted representations from a range of people and taken a decision about where we wanted to go in the future. The Government could have introduced a degree of certainty in the debate, so that both the private and voluntary sector and local authorities could plan and work to it. If we want any kind of insurance scheme to be a success, we have to be sure that the boundaries are clearly drawn-what the state will do and what individuals are expected to do.
	I have the privilege of representing a constituency that is probably in the top 35 in terms of older electors. It is not unusual for an elderly couple to come to see me at my surgery about their parents who are even frailer. The problem is that the system relies greatly on carers, some of whom are very elderly and unable to lift their loved ones or look after them. It is a good thing that families care for the elderly, and it needs to be encouraged. One of the things we need to look at as a state is whether if we gave individuals personal budgets, they could use that money to pay their relatives to look after them. From my understanding of the situation in Holland and one or two other states, I think that would be a good thing.
	Because of the sudden rush of blood to the Government's head, we have a partial change that will have perverse incentives on the rest of the system. We have not managed to ascertain tonight quite what the demand will be-until the service is implemented we shall not know-and as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) said, we do not know whether there will be full back-up. A big problem in Poole is that if somebody wants to stay in their own home, they need adaptions, which sometimes need planning permission, but the budget seems to be limited so it takes some while to get the adaptions that people need. That is one of the factors that will cause a problem.
	I am a little concerned about the funding, which seems to be calculated on the back of an envelope. In all my time in both local and national Government, there has been something called the magic pot, which is usually somebody else's efficiency savings projected over a period of years. If somebody else works a bit more efficiently, we can fund a particular service in the full knowledge that if local government cannot provide it efficiently, it will have to put up council tax.
	I spent longer in local government than I have as a Member of Parliament, and in my humble opinion local authorities are, on the whole, quite efficient at delivering services. They are certainly better at controlling money. They are better at dealing with a limited amount and getting what the Government want from it. It may not be everything the Government want, but local authorities manage to deliver an awful lot.
	I am not sure that the measure is being properly funded. The council element is questionable, as are one or two other elements, so the problem is that we shall come back to the pinch point of eligibility. At the end of the day, if councils do not have enough money, they will use eligibility criteria that fit the funds they have. Local authorities have been capped and are expected to make savings. On top of that they are now expected to deliver a major reform, which will require a great deal of investment-for example, in physiotherapists and adaptions to homes. It will also require funding, and ultimately if the funding is not there, the legislation cannot be carried out.
	Another perverse incentive is that, to some extent, the measure would discriminate against people going into care homes, which may be the best thing for some people to do. Families may try to keep someone in their own home when it is inappropriate because they do not want to burn up the value of the house by moving that person into a care home.
	We need to think carefully about the measure. I am glad that my hon. Friends have said that they intend, if given sufficient time, to scrutinise the Bill fully to ensure that we have answers to some of the major questions that have been raised.
	The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) made a very good point; there is a lot to be said for all-party consensus. Whatever is agreed needs to be agreed for between five and 20 years. We do not need somebody coming in with their new version and reinventing the wheel. We need long-term arrangements, so it is a pity that the Government rushed off in their own direction and did not listen to the opinions of the consultees, who initially thought they were genuinely being asked and were a little upset that the Government had already made up their mind-certainly on one aspect.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham made an important point about the distribution of the money on the basis of grant. Many of us have a heavy weighting of elderly, but also low grant levels, which will create a difficulty in delivering services. If the money is distributed on the basis of an older population, it would be welcome but there will clearly be losers, who might have an opinion. There are some very wealthy areas of Poole, but although many of my constituents have an asset in the form of a home that is worth a lot, their income is low-not least because people's pension arrangements have not been quite what they expected, for various reasons.
	Keeping people in their own home if they have no income or savings will be at a high cost, even if we can find enough people to run around and look after them. At present, many members of the Polish community do a great job looking after the elderly in most of the care homes in my constituency, but there will be a real problem finding people with adequate training to provide those services. In the past, as we all know, because of staff turnover and the terms and conditions both for those who work in care homes and for those who deliver care to individuals in their own home, the commitment to training has not been all it should be. If we are serious about providing a care package for people who remain in their own home, we have to increase the pay, rewards and training for those who look after the elderly, so that they receive the best care and so that caring is seen as a proper career and people do not go into it because they cannot do, or are not skilled enough to do, anything else.
	The Bill is interesting and I am glad that my hon. Friends will scrutinise it fully. We have a major problem, however. This is yet another initiative that, however worthy, needs to be funded against the background of a country that is spending rather too much. Unless we get a grip on that, there will be problems in the long term not only for our fellow citizens but for the children and grandchildren of some of the people we have been talking about in the debate.

John Hayes: If the Bill were an emergency measure-an emergency response to a problem-it would have happened sooner. After all, the circumstances with which it deals are well established and well known. If, on the other hand, it was not an emergency measure, it should have been part of a bigger Bill, a greater plan, as was envisaged in what the Government said earlier this year, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) from the Front Bench and by others.
	So one is left in a quandary about what the Bill is for. There are those in the Chamber who would take a cynical view. I alluded earlier to that view, my hon. Friend was kind enough to say, with irony. Some would say that it was purely a political calculation, but I like to think better of the Government than that. I cannot believe that Government Members would behave in such a low and dishonourable way. It would be certainly hard to imagine them doing so.
	I want to spend some time considering the Bill on its merits, however slim they might be. My hon. Friend identified two prevailing themes that should have underpinned the legislation. He spoke of quality. If we were to break that down further in respect of care, we would talk about where care was provided, by whom, at what point and in what form. One might have hoped for a little more clarity about any or all of those aspects of care in the opening speech from the Secretary of State, but it was short on such details, as is the very small Bill itself. We are not left in any greater certainty about what is to be provided, where, when or to whom; or at least not exactly to whom, for although the explanatory notes make an estimate of the number of people affected, as my hon. Friend highlighted, this calculation is imperfect.
	From even a preliminary glance at the Bill, it seems to me that it is likely to have two profound effects. One is a displacement effect on what is already being done, and the second is a catalyst effect on what might happen. Let us deal with them in turn. The displacement effect could have severe repercussions, certainly for local authorities, which are to provide much of the service on an unfunded basis. From where will they draw the money and what other services will suffer as a result of this displacement?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) should not be reading a newspaper in the Chamber.

John Hayes: It is difficult for me to comprehend that anyone would want to read a newspaper during this immensely penetrating and exciting oration, but self-delusion is a feature of politics, I suppose.
	The displacement effect of the Bill is likely to be serious. The House deserves a better explanation of what the Government have modelled in those terms. We heard earlier, rather alarmingly, that the consultation on the proposed legislation has been, at best, slight. None the less, it is inconceivable that the Department will not have modelled some of the effects on local authorities. I hope that when the Minister sums up, we hear more about that modelling.
	There is a displacement effect in other respects. Other services that are provided to people in order to deliver the quality of care to which my hon. Friend referred may be at risk, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) highlighted.
	Equally limited is the estimate of the catalyst effect of the Bill. When I come to the main part of my speech, I shall speak about the home and care in considerably more detail, but in these preliminary remarks, I urge the Government to provide, perhaps in the summing up, greater clarity about what the catalyst effect might be.
	It is surely inconceivable that people will not reorder their affairs to take advantage of the extra care. That is not in any sense a criticism. I guess it is what many of us might do in similar circumstances, but again, there is a singular absence of information about that-no obvious estimate, no modelling available to the House. I entirely endorse the sentiment expressed from those on the Opposition Front Bench that these matters need to be explored in considerable detail in Committee, which is why the programme motion is disappointing, to say the least.
	The only modelling that we have is in the explanatory notes, but the calculations there-the estimates of the number of people in the main beneficiary groups and the table that forms part of that-seem to be imperfect. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire mentioned the mathematical imperfections. Given the displacement that I described and the incentive effect that I mentioned, perhaps the table ought to be recalculated. I hope that a pledge might come from Ministers to examine those matters more closely in the light of the contributions of various hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Brooks Newmark: When I asked the Minister about the cost of individuals giving up their time-constituents in Braintree often tell me about the time that they give-the figure was some £80 billion. That represents what all our constituents collectively do by way of giving to family members and close friends. However, there is a sense of social contract and obligation that the Government should have in respect of our constituents who put in time-that is, non-financial benefits and non-financial support. Has my hon. Friend thought through these issues and the shortcomings of the Bill with respect to the non-financial support that the Government should give to our constituents?

John Hayes: Indeed. That very good point was made not only by my hon. Friend, but also by the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who speaks with some authority on these matters. The hon. Gentleman asked the Secretary of State about the relationship with carers and the effect of the Bill on carers. In doing so, he was echoing the sentiments so strongly expressed when the Bill that the present Bill amends was introduced in the House back in 2002.
	The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), made it clear that the purpose of that legislation was to marry care with health and to take into account all the elements that constitute quality care-not merely the information provided by health authorities to those responsible for care, but some calculation of the various individuals and agencies that collectively comprise quality care. I shall have more to say about the 2003 Act, which has been mentioned several times in the debate, and about how the Bill marries with that precedent.
	There is a legitimate difference between principle and purpose. That is not, as it might seem, axiomatic. The principle on which the Bill is founded-that of care in the home-is shared across the Chamber. The purpose of the Bill, however, is less clear. Its purpose in respect of delivering that principle is-I put it as kindly as I can-questionable, because although the Secretary of State claimed in its defence that it was paving legislation, when challenged repeatedly through interventions and by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, he conceded, quite generously and certainly openly, that further legislation would be required. Indeed, he spoke of "a major reform" being necessary, but he made no attempt to suggest that this Bill was that major reform; he said merely that it anticipated the major reform that was essential to satisfy the principle and to deliver the objective that all Members share.

Stephen O'Brien: I am listening in awe to my hon. Friend's great speech, which is clearly schooled by the great compassion that he has for his many constituents who find themselves in difficulty. One thing of which I am sure he is conscious is how the Government did not make their case that there was a bridge between the Bill and the Green Paper process, which had legitimised so much of the debate to date. Does he therefore agree that it would be appropriate for the Government to provide time for amendments to be made to the Bill to widen its ambition and ambit, not least so that we can put it into the context for which he argues on behalf of his constituents?

John Hayes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, because he, as a Front-Bench spokesman on these matters, knows far more about them than I do. He is right that I am, however imperfectly, a champion for my constituents' interests, particularly my most vulnerable constituents, for the cause of the most vulnerable lies at the heart of Conservative passion; for a core tenet of Conservatism is the elevation of the people: the responsibility that the fortunate have for the less fortunate.
	On my hon. Friend's intervention, it seems to me that the Government have two options: either they can do as he invites and make the Bill bigger, build on its slim elements and create the major reform that the Secretary of State acknowledged was necessary; or they might choose, as a result of this debate or further reflection, to withdraw the Bill, continue the process that they began earlier in the year, recognise that bigger legislation is the best way of proceeding with these matters and acknowledge-I suppose rather grudgingly, but it would be to their immense credit if they did-that this Bill was a gimmick and that the subject deserves more.

Stephen Ladyman: rose-

John Hayes: The subject certainly deserves the sort of considered reflection that the hon. Gentleman gives such matters.

Stephen Ladyman: Let us assume that there is a White Paper in the new year; that there is a discussion about it; that a consensus begins to emerge; that a new Government are elected, perhaps, in May; and that they come to the House with a much wider social welfare reform Bill, which would take the best part of 12 months to go through. That would mean that the wider reform of which the hon. Gentleman talks would take, with the best will in the world, approximately 18 months. Is it not reasonable for the Government to introduce this small measure, which will help some people with the most serious needs between now and the conclusion of that process 18 months hence? He seems to argue for doing nothing for those people who need help now, while we carry on debating the issue for perhaps another 18 months.

John Hayes: If we were having that debate at the beginning of the life of a new Government, or at the end of the first term of a new Government, that might be a reasonable point. But, as the Government have been in power for a considerable time, it is odd that this Bill should emanate at this juncture. As I have said, I try not to be cynical about these things, but a more sceptical person than I might argue, "Better a Bill that works later than an imperfect Bill now." If the hon. Gentleman's scenario came to pass, it is not only likely that the best bits of this Bill would be included in that legislation, but that, more significantly, proper consultation with all the interest groups, local authorities and representative organisations of those most affected by the legislation could and would take place. That process would inform the Bill, which as a result would change and develop.
	I see the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) in his place. I know him well because I shadowed him in another life, as it were, so I cannot believe that he does not find persuasive the argument that we really need to think again about the Bill. We need to measure its likely effects in terms put by various third parties. I shall refer to them later, because thus far it has not received an uncritical reception from the groups that I just mentioned. We need either to flesh it out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) proposes, or to withdraw it and start again.
	I say to the hon. Member for South Thanet that the people most affected want a Bill that is best, a Bill that works for them; they certainly do not want a short-term measure that has to be either amended or replaced rapidly with something quite different.

Jeremy Wright: Does my hon. Friend agree that another consequence of the Bill taking effect and disappointing people is that it, in its production, it will inevitably raise expectations considerably among vulnerable people? If they find that those expectations are not met, will they look with favour on further discussions-cross-party or otherwise-about the future of social care?

John Hayes: That is where I began my speech-by reaffirming the point about the desirability of quality. The Bill must deliver quality care. Those expectations will be for just that kind of care, and quality care often manifests in the contribution of a range of agencies and individuals bringing in all kinds of different skills: the holistic approach that one had every hope might spring from the Green Paper consultation, a White Paper and well considered legislation. One disadvantage of proceeding now is exactly the false expectation to which my hon. Friend draws our attention, and its consequences in terms not just of disappointment, but-I go further-heartache.

Stephen O'Brien: The hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) said that we should support this-by his own admission-small measure in the overall architecture of care, be that domiciliary or residential care, and my hon. Friend effectively replied that we do not oppose it, but we do question it. First, we want more Committee time to question it; secondly, in response to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), we need more capacity. This is about the quality not just of the offering, but of the promise that can be delivered-if that is what is on offer-in October 2010. If that quality of promise cannot be kept, the damage done to vulnerable people will be so cruel as to be not worth thinking about.

John Hayes: The shadow Secretary of State said that the issue was not just funding or organisation, but quality. My hon. Friend's intervention leads me to conclude that the problem is not only about quality, but-to go further than the shadow Secretary of State-about organisation and funding, because some the Bill's effects may be perverse. We agree with its principle, but its too limited nature may of itself be detrimental to the principle that we share.
	Chesterton said:
	"To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it".
	The Government certainly have the right to introduce this legislation, but I am not sure that a politician of the distinguished status of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Corby would want this Bill on his record when he could have a much better Bill if he did the thing properly.

Chloe Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Hayes: I shall, but then I want to move on to the substance of my speech, because these are only my introductory remarks, after all.

Chloe Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for affording me just a few moments. Does he agree with me and, I am sure, other Members-at least on the Opposition Benches-that the part of society under discussion is a particularly vulnerable one to, as it were, monkey around with, and that we face a particular demographic challenge that such hasty legislation does nothing whatever to combat?

John Hayes: Yes. As long ago as 2002, when the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill, which this Bill amends, was introduced, the then Secretary of State pointed out exactly that. In introducing the Bill, he said:
	"Ours is an ageing society. We should not fear but celebrate that. However, it poses formidable challenges for our key public services in providing better, faster care to higher standards"-[ Official Report, 28 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 501.]
	based on the desire for older people to have independence, not dependence. That is the principle that I am describing as the one on which we all agree, supplemented by an absolute determination that such care should be of the highest quality and provided from the best sources-that we get the who, what, when and where questions right.
	To that end, I will focus briefly on the principle of care at home. In doing so, I want to draw attention to the time of year at which we debate these matters. As we approach Christmas, it is appropriate to remember Charles Dickens, is it not? Chesterton wrote that
	"in everybody there is a certain thing that loves babies, that fears death, that likes sunlight: that thing enjoys Dickens."
	It is that part of us that also loves home and cares about the most vulnerable. Dickens himself wrote:
	"Home is a name, a word, it is a strong one; stronger than magician ever spoke, or spirit ever answered to, in the strongest conjuration."
	For me, the concept of home is at the heart of civilised life. This is much more than speaking about housing. To talk of housing is one thing; to talk of home lifts us on to a different emotional plane. Home stands at the bright centre of our lives; home is where lives start and end. It is where we return to at the end of each day, and where we hope to return to at the end of all our days. It is right that people should be enabled to live in their homes for as long as they possibly can and that we should provide adequate support in order for them to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire referred to quality in respect of care. For me, that is intrinsically linked to the security, certainty and familiarity associated with the home, all of which contribute to care in all kinds of ways that are supportive not only of a reasonable quality of life but a reasonably healthy life.
	Ministers might claim-as indeed they have, not entirely convincingly; in fact, I do not think that they themselves are entirely convinced-that the legislation before us attempts to enable people to return home at the end of their days, or to stay at home. However, the Bill's purpose is both limited and contradictory. It contains just two clauses, and that paucity of content reveals its true purpose. It is not intended to address the substantial reasons why so many people are forced from their homes and into care, but simply to help one person to stay in one home. That person is the Prime Minister, and the home is 10 Downing street. I have to conclude, reluctant as I am to do so, that this is, in essence, a political Bill fired by partisan interest. I know it is hard to credit, but I think I have to say it. It is fired by partisan interest rather than by a genuine desire to introduce meaningful legislation.
	That is not to say that Ministers do not care about these matters-of course they do. Members of this House across the party divide care about these issues because they encounter them in their constituencies day by day. No political party has a monopoly on care or concern, or on decent people. However, it does Government no favours when they put that genuine concern to one side to pursue a narrowly political interest.

Phil Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Hayes: Having been so kind to the hon. Gentleman, I hope that he will be equally kind to me.

Phil Hope: That is my intention. The hon. Gentleman has spoken very eloquently, as he is wont to do. We have met on many occasions to debate many different topics in the past, and his erudition is there for us all to admire. He spoke eloquently about the importance of the home. Given that these proposals are about providing free personal care at home, I assume that I can look forward to seeing him in the Aye Lobby later this evening.

John Hayes: I talked about the principle of the Bill being right, but I made it absolutely clear that I thought that its purpose was at best unclear and possibly worse, and suggested that it might have unintended consequences that were the negation of that principle. On that basis, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would hardly expect me misguidedly to follow the hon. Gentleman into the Aye Lobby and encourage the delusion-I am being generous in using that word-that lies at the heart of the Bill. I cannot believe that it is wicked, so it must be deluded.

Phil Hope: I am trying to work out where the hon. Gentleman stands. On that basis, I assume that he will be voting in the No Lobby against support for free personal care in people's own homes.

John Hayes: No, because I retain my sense of optimism, as I think I have made perfectly clear in this all-too-brief contribution. That optimism leads me to conclude that it is just possible that the Ministers responsible for the Bill, and those who follow them on the Government Benches, will be persuaded by the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire and others that it could be improved-that, with reconsideration, it might grow into the bigger piece of legislation that we all acknowledge is necessary and that, indeed, the Government heralded in their Green Paper just a few short months ago. It is not the principle that is wrong-it is the Bill.

Phil Hope: rose-

John Hayes: I think the hon. Gentleman is rising to tell me that he has been persuaded by my argument.

Phil Hope: I am hugely persuaded by the possibility that the Conservatives, of whom the hon. Gentleman is a very eloquent representative, will support a comprehensive Bill on a National Care Service in future, as he has just said that he would like to see a much bigger Bill. May I take it from his remarks that the Conservative party is pledged to support the creation of a national care service in future?

John Hayes: I try never to make policy on the hoof, as a matter of principle, but when I do, I try to ensure that it is in those areas for which I have Front-Bench responsibility.
	In response to the hon. Gentleman's question, there is clearly a need to rethink this area of public policy; that is widely acknowledged. It was acknowledged in the Green Paper and identified by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State in his speech. The reconsideration of this public policy area must take account of five criteria: first, a proper assessment of need, which means an assessment in terms of numbers and the character of that need; secondly, the views of all the organisations affected, by which I mean representative organisations, charitable organisations and local authorities; thirdly, a consideration of the implicit dynamism of this subject, because need changes rapidly and it is multi-faceted, so it requires the involvement of all kinds of specialists and skills, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham described; fourthly, some estimate of cost, which is sadly lacking in the Bill, not least because the consultation necessary to come to firm conclusions about cost has been imperfect or non-existent; and finally and fundamentally, a wraparound consideration of our societal objectives in respect of care.
	This is a big debate that has been taking place for many years, and views on it have changed, developed and evolved. However, I think there is a growing consensus that where possible, care is best delivered in the kind of secure and familiar circumstances that the home exemplifies.
	On the basis of those five criteria, I would be happy to consider where we might go further, but as I do not have specific responsibility for this matter I offer them merely as a point of discussion.

Stephen O'Brien: rose-

John Hayes: I know that my hon. Friend will now translate them into Tory policy on this subject.

Stephen O'Brien: I am glad to find that my hon. Friend has been paying such close attention to areas outside his own brief that he has articulated party policy very adequately. He made a serious point, on which the Minister sought to challenge him, about the question of consensus. I think there is a mood in the House that we need to try to establish, where we can, a consensus on the way forward on an issue that we can all see is coming down the track not just for our political generation but for those who succeed us.
	Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be quite interesting to get an invitation from Ministers to join them in a round-table discussion that might identify areas of consensus, and that we would be happy to accept it? Given the Minister's challenge to him, would not a good start be for the Minister to accept that if the Government amended the Bill to include our home protection scheme, that would protect not only the people whom he seeks to protect-a small number, according to the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman)-but those whom we seek to protect, who are fearful because they might have to sell their homes to pay for long-term residential care?

John Hayes: The Minister has positive form in that respect. It was his willingness to listen and learn that allowed him to shape Government policy on skills largely around my analysis, as he knows. I retain high hopes, and that optimism is borne out to some extent by the title of the Government's consultation paper, which, as my hon. Friend knows, was "Shaping the Future of Care Together". That is consensual by its very nature. So it is more in sorrow than in anger that I point out that after the promising beginning of a Green Paper to open up discussion, we have ended with a Bill on the back of a party conference speech. As the Minister knows, the Bill's narrow scope directly contradicts the wider focus of the Green Paper.

Phil Hope: rose-

John Hayes: I will give way one more time, but then I must move on to the main thrust of my argument.

Phil Hope: I noticed that the hon. Gentleman failed to take up the offer from his party's spokesman to support an amendment to the Bill that would incentivise people towards residential care rather than living in their own home. I assume that he did not pick up on that offer because, like me, he wants incentives that keep people living longer in their own homes.

John Hayes: I listened closely to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire-I was having a cheese sandwich at the time, but I like to follow these things from near or far-and what he actually said was that an insurance model might well incentivise insurance companies to enable people to stay in their homes. That is far from the parody that the Minister paints. The insurance model that the Government identified as a possibility in the Green Paper could well be constructed to incentivise insurance companies to bring about exactly that outcome. I do not take such a limited view of the options the Government described in the Green Paper as the Minister has come to. He has done so rather hurriedly, given that it was published only recently.
	It is clear that the No. 1 priority identified in the Green Paper is that we need more joined-up working. That has been touched on by contributors on both sides of the Chamber. The Green Paper states:
	"We need services that will keep people independent and well for longer...through better joined-up working between health, housing and social care services and between social care and the disability benefits system."
	As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have a long-standing interest in disability issues, and I wonder about the proposal that disability benefits should be redirected to local authorities to provide care. I wonder whether we are thus caught on the horns of a dilemma, on the one hand trying to provide more personalised care and on the other depersonalising the benefits system. Joined-up working necessitates proper discussion with local government and a proper assessment of how it will do the job that the Bill gives it.
	The Green Paper mentions services
	"fully joined up between the NHS and the new National Care Service."
	However, I have heard nothing this evening to reassure me about the information provided by the health service to care services, or about the role of third-party organisations such as Headway, which helps many brain-injured people and with which I have been involved for many years. It allows people with acquired brain injury, often suffering from serious disability, to stay in their own homes. They are frequently younger people, whom we should not exclude from our considerations tonight.

Phil Hope: indicated assent.

John Hayes: I notice that the Minister freely acknowledges that. It is important that the views of organisations such as Headway be taken into account. Mechanisms must be put in place to ensure that the support given to people in Headway houses, which provide support for carers as well as the young people affected, is properly accounted for in the Bill. I hope the Minister will say something about that area of policy.
	The Green Paper also states that the benefits of a joined-up service are that
	"people receive more appropriate care in the right setting, reducing costs, improving outcomes and ensuring that services work together to keep people healthy and active wherever possible."
	I am not convinced that the Bill will ensure any of that. Its single substantial change will be made out of context and out of place and is born of short-term, limited and arguably political ambitions. As the King's Fund has warned, the Bill makes the Green Paper's proposals "incoherent". Age Concern and Help the Aged have spoken of the need for
	"fundamental reform of the entire care system".
	I and the Opposition Front Benchers anticipated the need for such a root-and-branch reform as a result of the Green Paper and the discussions it provoked. The Learning Disability Coalition has argued that the Bill contains "perverse incentives" that will prevent people from taking advantage of the most appropriate care.
	Surely we need an holistic approach, as my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said, with an emphasis on more preventive care to ensure that more people stay in their own homes. That means that we must be sceptical about any plans for cuts in disability living allowance and attendance allowance, or any redirection of allowances into the care system that takes place without proper discussion and consultation with representative organisations.
	I invite the Minister to answer one or two further questions. Will he clarify the marriage between the care budget and the various allowances that will feed the process financially? Will he say something about the estimates he has made of the displacement effect on local government? Will he draw a clearer picture of the effect on wider services that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham mentioned? My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury, the shadow Minister, in summing up, will add to and amplify those questions, and he will of course have cleverer ones of his own, but speaking with an appropriate degree of humility on a subject of which my only knowledge is derived from representing the interests of my most vulnerable constituents, I ask the Minister, at least as a starting point, to deal with those fairly fundamental doubts.
	T.S. Eliot wrote:
	"Home is where one starts from",
	and as I have said, it is also where we frequently return for care and support. The objective of facilitating more personal care at home is one that will be widely shared across the House, but it requires far greater consideration, and more careful reflection and proper planning, than is suggested by the Bill. To work, the measure must work well, and to do that, it must be carefully conceived and properly considered. We owe those who will be most affected by the Bill nothing less than that.

Tobias Ellwood: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who not only entertained but educated us in relation to the Bill. He orated to us in a way that we are now accustomed to, and has an intellectual status that we esteem and aspire to.
	It is noticeable that this has almost been a Tory debate in the last hour or so-in fact, I cannot see one Liberal Democrat Member, although a couple of Labour Members have wandered in and out. I am, I believe, the third consecutive Conservative speaker-

John Pugh: rose-

Tobias Ellwood: I have woken the Liberal Democrat Member up and I am delighted to give way to him. No? He has nodded back off again.
	As a representative of Bournemouth in Dorset, the issue of looking after the elderly, who are some of the most vulnerable people in our population, is pertinent. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings pointed out, it is about not only the elderly, but younger people-it is about those who are not able to look after themselves. Society therefore requires some form of safety net and security so that we can ensure that people have the type of care that we would all expect to receive in the same situation. At this point, I pay tribute to those who work in the care and support sector-not only the professionals, but the volunteers, including the many family members, who tirelessly devote many hours, days, weeks and years to looking after those who are close to them and important to them.
	Winston Churchill talked about the importance of the safety net that society requires to capture those people who fall in their station in life, whether that is their own fault or otherwise. I should like to make a more modern analogy-the community that we are in is like those penguins found in Antarctica. When the sun is shining, we go about our business, enjoy ourselves and act as part of the community; but when times are tough and the storms come in, the penguins gather round in a tight-knit circle. In fact, they move around ever so slightly to keep those in the very centre warm and to ensure that those on the outside are exposed and vulnerable for only a very short period. That is exactly how society should work. When we require care, we are surrounded by the warmth of our community and its support, be that from the voluntary or private sectors or the state, to ensure that we can weather those difficult times. That is why one aspect of care is prevention-it is not always about what happens when care is required-but that is entirely absent from the Bill.
	Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have been exposed to the care and support requirements of our community through my work as a Member of Parliament. Clearly, the confusing system that we have does not make it easy for those requiring access to care to ensure that they have what they expect. That was highlighted when I visited Douglas House in Boscombe in Bournemouth, which serves 16 severely disabled adults. It is a fantastic unit, and I pay tribute to those who work there. They are dedicated to looking after those severely disabled adults.
	Unfortunately, forgetting the idea of choice, the Government want to close the centre down and push its residents into the community. I have not got a problem per se with the concept of allowing those involved, including parents, to decide to move someone who requires care into the community. However, those 16 families very much want to keep that place open. I understand that moving those who are currently at Douglas House into the community would cost five times more per person. I do not understand, if we are pushing the idea of choice, why the Government are telling Bournemouth and Poole primary care trust that it cannot keep Douglas House open.
	I plead with the Minister to consider this. We have handed in a petition of more than 10,000 names to No. 10, but we have hit a brick wall. I reiterate that this is the desire of parents with children in that facility. We are not listening to the requirements and needs of those people, and that will cost the taxpayer more.
	We need to recognise the importance of upgrading our care offering, and I am saddened by the fact that so few hon. Members are in the Chamber to debate this important subject. Their absence may be linked to the size of the Bill, because there is not much in it to debate. Every single hon. Member who has spoken has added things that they would have liked to see in the Bill.
	The Secretary of State began by saying that the Bill is a great stride forward in the move to reconcile the care package provided in the United Kingdom, but the two minuscule clauses are simply election posturing. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has pointed out, we will have an opportunity in Committee and in the other place to make this Bill into something of which we can be a little more proud. As it stands, it does not reflect 10 years of hard work by any Government.
	The development of care policy by the Labour Government has been a story of procrastination. Back in 1997, the royal commission on long-term care was set the task of looking at the system and recommending a series of changes. It was not until 2008 that we had a six-month engagement process. That was useful, but it was a long time after the initial commission made its recommendations. We then had the Green Paper, "Shaping the Future of Care Together", issued this year, with big statements about a National Care Service. It was a bold and radical proposal to shake up the care and support package available. Then we had the huge announcement by the Prime Minister at the Labour party conference of his intention to include a Bill in the Queen's Speech. In total, it has been a 13-year process, in which progress has been slow and which has not reflected the urgency that this subject requires.

Joan Ryan: The hon. Gentleman has referred to royal commissions and Green Papers. However, he has not mentioned the dramatic change in social care that has taken place on the ground, in the move towards personalised care and personal budgets. Perhaps he could say something about how that move is linked to the Bill.

Tobias Ellwood: I am not going to digress from my examination of the changes that should have taken place. We are here to debate the Second Reading of a Bill that is very small and does not do justice to the length of time that the Government have had to change the system, or to the sound work in the Green Paper. Many people who have done all that work and participated in consultations on the Green Paper will look at the Bill and ask, "Is that it?" They will be severely disappointed unless the Bill is radically changed in Committee or in the other place.
	The exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings and the Minister was interesting. My hon. Friend was pondering which way to vote this evening. I hope that more of our hon. Friends will turn up to decide that, otherwise this will be a short debate. The question for the Minister is whether he would be willing and open enough to accept amendments tabled in Committee and in the other place to build on the opportunity provided by the Bill, separate to other initiatives on the ground. That, I think, is the test for the Minister himself. He is shying away from even looking at me now, so I suggest that the answer-

Phil Hope: I am writing copious notes.

Tobias Ellwood: The Minister says that he is writing copious notes. Well, it would be nice to get an indication, either now or in the winding-up speech, of whether this Government are open to amending the Bill to beef it up and make it something we can respect.
	We are debating the Bill on Second Reading, which happens to fall three months before a general election. It looks like there has been a dash for policy and a rush to put a tick in a box, so I have to ask the Secretary of State, in his absence, whether he was constantly last in the queue when the Prime Minister was doling out time for Bills to be debated in Parliament. How many Parliaments have we had to go through before finally reaching the Second Reading of such a Bill? We now seem to have a concession: a small Bill squeezed in just before we go to the polls. That is a shameful exercise, I am afraid, considering the deterioration of the service, which has been remarked upon across the Chamber-the fall in the coverage of care and the rising costs of it over the past decade.
	The timing of the Bill is certainly questionable. It is also questionable in relation to the Green Paper, because we are midway through a wider consultation on the aspects of social reform. My intervention-the first the Secretary of State took-was to ask why we are having this Bill now. He could not give me a clear answer; he could not acknowledge the fact that the Bill is part of an electoral cycle, rather than solid policy being put forward.
	Also, we have to ask ourselves what is not in the Bill. It is thin on substance and there is little to disagree with, but there is little in the Bill in the first place. The costs of the Bill have not been outlined at all. Perhaps we will get more clarity in the winding-up speech. We have had the pre-Budget report, which included a black hole in the finances. We now have a Bill that includes a black hole in the finances. It is vague about how local authorities will foot the bill without having a knock-on impact on other services.
	It is worth reminding ourselves what personal care means. It is personal hygiene, such as bathing, continence management and assistance with eating; personal assistance, such as dressing and so forth; and simple treatment. It does not include nursing, which is not seen as part of personal care. The Labour royal commission on long-term care, which reported in 1999, recommended that long-term care should be split into living costs, housing costs and personal care, and that personal care should be available after an assessment and paid out of general taxation. Most of the recommendations were accepted, but not that one concerning personal care. The reason cited was that there were not enough resources.
	It is peculiar that we have just had a huge recession-the biggest since the second world war-and suddenly finances seem to have been made available.

Edward Timpson: In the light of those comments, does not my hon. Friend find it rather strange that the explanatory notes state:
	"The Government's view is that the Bill has little overall effect on public sector manpower and public expenditure"?
	Yet here we are, talking about the resources that will be required to put through what at the moment is a flimsy, unfunded Bill. We know that the costs will be much greater than the Government are willing to admit.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Perhaps it is timely that the Secretary of State has returned to the Chamber, because he might be able to clarify the exact cost to the Exchequer of this Bill-not just the up-front costs, but, as my hon. Friend suggests, the funding requirement for the extra staff who will be required to implement what is proposed here. That is not clear at all.
	The next big document that the Government produced-a number of years later, in July 2009-was the Green Paper entitled "Shaping the Future of Care Together". Having digested that document, I have to say that there are many interesting ideas in it. It puts together a wide array of issues, and a number of pieces of the jigsaw are there. However, the Government have chosen to take just one piece of that jigsaw and promote it today, completely missing the wider context of what else is happening in care.
	That Green Paper, which I hope the Secretary of State might be willing to look back at, points out that the current system is based on legacy and calls for bold reform, such as that which created the NHS. By changing things in incremental steps and limiting the objectives, things will begin to overlap and we will end up with a confusing structure. Rather than heeding the advice of the Green Paper, we are ignoring it and just coming out with another little building block to add to the confusing layers that we already have.
	The scale of the problem is evident. We are all living longer. It is estimated that, by 2026, 1.7 million adults will expect care in one form or another. One in two men will expect some form of care as they get older, and two in three women will have high care needs. The problem will not go away. The type of care available will also become more complex, as advances in science are made. People's expectations will increase, yet what we have today is confusion over funding. Wide variations of care are offered, with standards differing from council to council across the country. That is another example of the postcode lottery, but I do not see how the Bill will challenge that.
	Money is not always appropriately spent. As I mentioned earlier, so much more effort could be invested in prevention, rather than in a cure. The current system is effectively a means-tested structure, so savings are used to pay for care. As has been reiterated time and again, we now see a requirement for people to sell their property in order to pay for the care that they will need. That is scandalous.
	Labour's big idea was the creation of the National Care Service, which was to be
	"a universal and sustainable system which empowers people to live their lives the way they want to",
	providing access and support to people regardless of location; an easily understood system with agreed levels of assessments across the country, based on personal circumstances and recognising individuals' ability to pay, and all fully co-ordinated with the NHS and, of course, fair and affordable. That is a bold statement. That is radical. That is what we should be working towards in this Bill.

Andy Burnham: indicated assent.

Tobias Ellwood: The Secretary of State nods, but why is he just nodding with me, rather than having that written in the proposal before us?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will have noted, as I did when he was quoting the Green Paper, that it included remarks about recognising people's ability to pay. The proposal in the legislation before us is that people with higher care needs should be given free personal care regardless of their ability to pay. The principles for the National Care Service that the Government set out in the Green Paper are therefore not the principles on which they propose to legislate.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification on one of the many issues that will undoubtedly be scrutinised further in this Second Reading debate, as we highlight the Bill's shortfalls.
	On cost, the funding proposals are completely vague. This has been stated already, but the care requirements or needs of the average 65-year-old will probably be around £30,000 over their lifetime. In reality, that amount could be only £1,000, but in other cases, extra care-more detailed and more complex care-is required, the cost of which can reach £50,000.
	The Bill has two simple clauses. The first concerns the removal of the six-week limit on the provision of care offered for free, while the second is almost just a tidying-up exercise, linking Wales with England. It really is a pathetic Bill, considering where we are in the whole process of designing a new care system, costing around £670 million, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire said. The Secretary of State's claim is that the Bill is the first step towards a National Care Service. What a shame that we do not have the other steps, and that we are only now debating the initial stage, when we could have done so much in the past 10 years.
	The Bill guarantees free personal care for about 280,000 people, although that figure requires clarification. I do not think that anyone in the Chamber will disagree with the proposals, but, time and again, hon. Members have pointed to what is missing, and to what a missed opportunity this is. Attached to the Bill is, of course, another consultation, on proposals for regulations and guidance. All this is coming out in the lead-up to the general election that is just around the corner.
	It is interesting to read the research paper on the Bill produced by the House of Commons Library, which is a neutral body. On page 10, it provides comments from other organisations and agencies. Andrew Harrop, the head of policy for Age Concern, stressed:
	"It will be essential that councils are properly funded to provide this care so that there is not an incentive for them to push older people into care homes or claim that their needs are not critical enough to warrant free care at home."
	Jane Ashcroft, chairman of the English Community Care Association,
	"queried why the Government had not introduced the policy at the same time as the green paper on social care."
	Consumer watchdog Which? viewed the Bill as "a missed opportunity". Lord Lipsey, a former member of the royal commission on long-term care, is quoted as saying:
	"I think it is a bad policy but also a very bad way to do policy just to find a nice highlight for your Labour Party conference speech."
	Those are voices that we should respect. They are critical of the Bill, saying that we should think again on these issues.
	I think that we all agree that an advanced, civilised society needs a fair, accessible and compassionate care and support system that allows people to live their lives to the full and meets the needs of people as they grow older in an affordable way. The Government have proved that there is some vision, as was highlighted in the Green Paper, but the Bill is far from having any vision at all. The Government have woken up to the urgency of the need for reform very late in the day, despite gaining a head start more than a decade ago when they were prompted by the commission to go in this direction.
	This is a timid Bill, and it falls short of many people's aspirations, including many in the industry. In the introduction to the Green Paper, "Shaping the Future of Care Together", the Prime Minister says:
	"What is now needed is a major debate about the challenge we face and the options for addressing it."
	I would hardly call what we have had today a major debate. We have been denied that, because nothing major has been put in front of us. The Bill is not properly financed. It comes without a proper impact assessment. It gives little clarity on how the provisions will dovetail with the NHS, and provides no indication of how many extra staff will be needed. It is a pathetic piece of the bigger jigsaw set out in the Green Paper.
	On top of all this, we have a programme motion-which we have yet to talk about-that will limit the amount of time for debating the Bill. Proper debate might just add to the Bill, either in Committee or in the House of Lords. This is a rushed Bill, and it represents a missed opportunity. It has very little chance of getting on to the statute book. It has just one aim, and that is not to help the vulnerable people across Britain but to help a vulnerable individual in No. 10. If this is the best that Labour can muster after a decade to help those in need of care in Britain, it is proof-if any more were needed-that Labour has run out of ideas and that it is time for a general election.

Chloe Smith: It is a pleasure to follow the powerful contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood). I will also begin by describing the confusion surrounding the Bill. As many Members have said, the Bill is part of a much bigger picture. I hope that the House will forgive me if I lighten the tone by sharing a feature of the Smith family's multi-generational Christmases, following the evocation of Dickens in the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). The Bill is a bit like one of those mystery jigsaws. We start with a bit of sky and a bit of grass, but we have to fill in the rest as best we can because there is no picture to guide us-

Tobias Ellwood: They have lost the lid.

Chloe Smith: Absolutely.
	I follow on from the Lord Lipsey quotation already given:
	"What has gone wrong is that in the middle of the consultation... the prime minister has declared that it is government policy for people with severe care needs in their own home to be paid in full".
	I will come on to what we all think about that principle, but to try another analogy and to bring back the idea of homes, this is like trying in a consensual way to build a community of homes that will withstand the future, only to find that on one plot in the street there is a jerry-built shed which might well shelter some in a storm but which has not been made with the care and forethought that the whole project requires.
	Considering that we are looking for a White Paper in 2010 to follow the Green Paper that came this year, it is not enough simply to say that we need something rather than nothing-that something will do in the place of everything. We cannot hide the haste of a piece of legislation that, as ably noted earlier, has only two clauses and yet has been 12 years in the making. That is not the way I or many people outside this place would expect to go about such weighty matters as personal care at home-raising false expectations on the back of something that might turn out to be very poor quality. I shall return to that.
	Of course I join colleagues in welcoming the concept of personal care at home and, for many people, the concept of personal care at an affordable or zero price for those who need it. Nobody wants to be pushed out of their home; nobody wants to face high costs at particularly hard times and in emergency circumstances; nobody wants to be dependent on others or, indeed, on impersonal caring environments; nobody wants to lose any dignity; and nobody wants to be uncertain or to be the victim of a postcode lottery. However, we must be cautious in what we do from that position.
	I said in last week's debate, tangentially on the Green Paper but specifically on the continuation of the attendance allowance and the disability living allowance, that we must proceed with clarity on those issues, because we are dealing with a section of society that is often very vulnerable, but for the same reason we must go with caution. We rather randomly concluded in last week's debate that we should not approach the topic with heightened political emotions, but it is equally important to get it right. It is important not to get it wrong for the same reason as given last week-the size of the question ahead of us. There is still a demographic bomb ahead of us, so the scale of getting this wrong is important. As many Members have pointed out, the scale of the task is, frankly, unknown, but the scale of getting it wrong looms ever larger as an exponential problem ahead of us. I am afraid that putting one small piece of the jigsaw in place is simply not enough in this case because of that characteristic.

Christopher Fraser: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Does she agree with me that in large counties such as Norfolk-a great county that both she and I represent-with disparate communities in both rural and urban areas, a one-size-fits-all solution will not work, because some councils will be able to afford the provision and others will not?

Chloe Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I will come to what our local authority has had to say on this matter, as I have had conversations about it. He is right that the aspiration to end the postcode lottery may well be laudable, but the practicalities of getting it right are far harder.
	I will now deal briefly with costs and how the proposal might work, on the basis of the bare detail that we have been given so far. I cannot resist noting a comment made from the Government Front Bench earlier that the proposal will be subject to the "normal spending review process". It is a shame that the Secretary of State has disappeared again, as I wanted to put it to him that it is a shame that we have had no comprehensive spending review to help us determine how it fits into the bigger picture, in terms not only of the health budget but of where our country is going.
	The Secretary of State has told us that the Bill will require a contribution of £420 million from his coffers and a further £250 million from those of local authorities. As has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Christopher Fraser), and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), the co-ordination that the policy demands from local authorities is one of the main problems that we face. Informal discussions in which I have engaged with Norfolk county council, the local authority that I share with my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk, suggest that the council could incur a cost of £5 million. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that that could add up to £250 million if spread over an appropriate number of authorities on an annual basis. It should be borne in mind that Norfolk has already had to squeeze £15 million of efficiency savings out of next year's budget.

Edward Timpson: Does my hon. Friend agree that whenever the Government present a new policy or a new Bill to the House, the cost of implementing that new policy or Bill seems to fall on local authorities, which are having to make saving after saving? Is she still unaware, as I am, of the total efficiency savings that the Government are asking authorities to make over the next year and beyond?

Chloe Smith: I share my hon. Friend's perplexity. I know that my local authority will struggle to find more money in addition to the efficiency savings that, because it is a scrupulous and forward-thinking authority, it has already had to identify. Moreover, much of the work that that forward-thinking authority has tried to do will be imperilled, including some of its work on prevention in this very policy area.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk will know that, thanks to the Government, Norfolk is currently subject to local government reorganisation, which means that a particular burden falls on our local authorities and also those in Suffolk and Devon. That involves a cost for which central Government refuse to foot the bill. Having said that we must take this action, they then say, "We will not give you any money for it and, what is more, you had better not raise council tax to finance it." That is an enigma wrapped in a puzzle wrapped in any other Churchillian quote that Members may choose to employ-

Stephen O'Brien: Wrapped in a jigsaw.

Chloe Smith: Indeed-and still with no picture on the lid.
	I want to make one more point about costs before I deal with other aspects of the Bill. According to answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), the Government's contribution is not connected with whatever action they want to take in relation to attendance allowance and disability living allowance. I am almost tempted to ask, "If that is the case, why?" Either the Bill is connected with the Green Paper and therefore connected with those benefits, or it is not. That is another question that the Minister must answer.
	Let me now raise the issue of fairness. I believe that the worst risk posed by the Bill is that it endangers real reform. It pays for what is, on the overall scale of things, almost a minor reform, and it potentially helps people who are not the poorest in society. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire pointed out, that principle is not in the Green Paper. The Government seem to be operating on the basis of two entirely different principles, at a time of soaring national debt. It is not as if there are spare pounds floating around that can be thrown any which way.
	Nowadays we must be particularly careful to scrutinise any item of public spending, and Members are wary of poor quality. Many of us welcome the idea of free personal care at home, which is a wonderful principle, but the poor quality that we risk with legislation such as this may be the enemy of the people whom the Government-and we-are so keen to help. Other Members have already spoken about the aspect of quality that I wish to dwell upon: the staffing implications of these measures. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham made the point very strongly. In an intervention on her, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) said that we must find staff to make this change happen anyway, but that will not necessarily be the case. It is much easier to find staff to operate a well planned, well oiled and well funded system than it is to find adequately trained staff to operate a system such as that planned for October of next year, which, frankly, looks like a black hole at present. The Royal College of Nursing says:
	"It is essential that those with the highest needs receive the highest quality of personal care. With only 10 months until these measures come into force the RCN is concerned that there may not be sufficient numbers of properly trained social care staff and community nurses to meet the undoubted increased demand for care, which will follow from the introduction of these measures."
	I fully agree. There is a real risk that a hasty introduction of these measures will lead to a gap in the provision of properly trained and funded staff, which will imperil some of our society's most vulnerable people, whom all Members wish to help.
	Time and again, MPs hear horror stories on this topic from their constituents. I suspect that I have heard fewer than many other Members, but the message comes across loud and clear none the less. There are stories about carers who leave the elderly person in their care alone for most of the day, and turn up when they think that it is time for breakfast, which might be noon or 7 pm-or whatever time chosen by the carers who have been found to fill those personal care gaps. That is not a vision of personalised care; rather, it is a nightmare for many of our constituents. We risk that becoming a reality by introducing these measures with such haste.
	In this debate, all Members should be focusing on the value of good care staff. I am not sure that such a hasty introduction of these measures will allow us to fit that into the system, however. Proper planning for the requisite training takes years, but this Government have done the following things to hinder that. They have let the Learning and Skills Council go bust. They have also let my local further education college become stranded with insufficient classrooms because of a capital funding crisis-I am sure many other Members' FE colleges are in the same situation. This Government have let higher education students-some of whom may be involved in providing more specialist needs-suffer with no funding until Christmas.
	Also, the apprenticeship system has been asphyxiated, and a huge variation in training has developed-in the experiences that people are able to access, in whether red tape holds them back and prevents them from training properly, and in what places can be promised to younger people seeking training or to older people seeking to do their best for society. That is our current training picture, and we must ask ourselves how it will affect the system that the Minister is looking to have in place in 10 months' time.
	I am tempted to conclude by asking the Minister whether he agrees with me that the following very simple precautions would assist the Bill in its passage. It should be part of a larger reform. It should also help, rather than hinder, local authorities. It should give the Minister the opportunity to ask his colleagues to provide clarity and consistency in other sectors around this one, such as further education. The Minister might also consider instituting a licence to practise, or any other measures that could improve the safeguards in this area for vulnerable people, whom we all care about.
	The sad truth is, however, that the Minister cannot agree to those simple precautions, because, as Members have already picked up, he does not know the numbers. None of us knows how many people will be involved in this system. We can estimate the number of people who pay for their own care at present, but we cannot estimate how many more will come forward when such an incentive is offered. We cannot therefore estimate the full costs of this policy, or the number of trained staff that will be required to fulfil it and make the dream that we all wish for, of proper social care and personal care in the home, become a reality.
	There is a final thing that, through this Bill, the Minister is not allowing local authorities such as Norfolk county council to do. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) back in his place; he is the third Norfolk Member in the Chamber, so we are doing well. The legislation does not allow local authorities to deal with the demographics of the future. An enormous squeeze is coming down the line, not only in public spending-we all are, or should be, painfully aware of that-but in the number of people who will require such care in the future, whatever the incentives to provide it or to pay for it. The numbers are the key, but this Bill contains almost none. It certainly does not contain the numbers to allow us to scrutinise it properly. As the Bill is not connected to the bigger picture, it does not allow us to look ahead to the challenges coming down the track. I can but look forward to the day when the Minister looks up and gives us that bigger picture.

Jeremy Wright: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Chloe Smith), because I agreed with a great deal of what she said. May I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House for missing part of this evening's debate? I was chairing a meeting of the all-party group on dementia. As the Secretary of State said, many people with dementia will be directly affected by what the Government propose.
	I wish to start my contribution, as many have done, by applauding the Government's intention-it is right that we should do so. There are few more important issues than social care and it is right to make a start on this, but we cannot accuse the Government, over most of their term of office, of legislating with breakneck speed on it. The Wanless report, which asked a number of important questions about social care, was followed a considerable number of years later by a Green Paper that asked all those questions again, and now we have before us a Bill that proposes to answer part of one of them.
	If the Bill is even to do that, it needs to deliver on its promises, and that is where I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North and with others who have made this point. If the Bill is incapable of meeting the expectations that it has raised, not least by its title, it will be a cruel deception for those who are most reliant on social care and who will hope for most as a result of what the Government are proposing to do. That is why the uncertainty over the potential demand for free social care-the Government have not set out the terms of that in the Bill, but I hope that they will do so in the regulations that will follow it-is so important. This is about the unknown impacts on those currently funding social care themselves who may subsequently approach the state for free social care, of those who will not subsequently choose residential care as otherwise they might have done, and perhaps even of those in residential care who may choose to leave that care and return home to be cared for there-as we know, many prefer such an option.
	As my hon. Friend said, if we do not know what the demand will be, we do not know what the cost will be. We have heard that the estimate of the cost for the first year is £670 million, £250 million of which is expected to come from local government efficiency savings-one can only imagine the joy with which that news was greeted in town halls up and down the land. The remaining £420 million is expected to come from the Department of Health's research and development, marketing and consultancy budgets. I refuse to believe that the Government spend anything like £420 million on the Department of Health's marketing and consultancy budgets, so a substantial amount of the sum must be expected to come from the research and development budget. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me, and the House, that that will not affect the crucial work that goes on, not least in the field of dementia, where we already spend too little on research. If we do not spend a great deal more, it is very unlikely that we will find the cure that we hope for or, failing that, effective treatments, which will reduce the demand on our social care system in the first place.
	If there is a gap in funding-it is at the very least foreseeable that there might be, given the uncertainty, as we have heard, about the figures-who will pay for that gap? Will it be local or national Government? I rather agree with my hon. Friends who suspect that the answer is likely to be local government, once again. We must be sure, if that is the case, that it will be given adequate support to enable it to carry that burden.
	Let me say a word or two about the detail of the Bill. I agree with many who have spoken that reablement-although I am with my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) on the elegance, or lack thereof, of that term-is a crucial point. It is vital that we get people back into being able to deal with their own daily lifestyle needs to the extent that we can and to the extent that they can. However, I am concerned about the practical implication of that. It seems to me to be inconceivable that in order to move to a process of helping someone with reablement, there should not first be some form of assessment to ensure that they will benefit from the process. That means that there will be one assessment to ensure that somebody is suitable for reablement, a process of reablement and then another assessment, assuming that that is appropriate, to decide whether they are entitled to free social care under the criteria.
	We all know that assessment takes a long time-we all deal with constituency cases weekly that involve long-running processes of assessment, assuming that there are enough people to carry out the assessments in the first place, as my hon. Friend said. We also have to assume that we are capable of withstanding the extra pressure on the system that will inevitably be caused by the extra demand for the extra social care provision. That will include many people who have substantial care needs, but not quite the critical care needs required for the free social care, who will ask and expect to be given a reassessment. A great deal more assessment will suddenly need to be done, and if that assessment and extra demand on the assessment system are going to cause further delay, that is a concern. There will be a big step between those who are assessed as having substantial care needs and those assessed as having critical care needs, in much the same way as we experience with NHS continuing health care.
	Let us be charitable, however, and assume that we can establish whom we will be paying under this scheme and how we will pay for it. We still have to answer the question of what we will be paying for. I do not want to revisit the debate that we had last week on attendance allowance and disability living allowance, but the freedom to spend the money that one receives in the way that one chooses was crucial to that debate and, I suggest, it is important in this one, too. The Minister will have seen, as I am sure many other hon. Members have, that Carers UK, in its response to the Bill, which I accept broadly welcomed it, also expressed concern about the situation of those families where family members are prepared to offer care in the home but would value assistance with other things such as gardening, shopping, transport and so on. We have to ask whether the provisions will enable such families sufficient flexibility to have what they need rather than what the Government wish to give them. We come back to the question of how committed the Government are to their personalisation agenda, to which I fully subscribe.
	There are broader issues, too, about what we pay for. The Minister has heard me talk before about what is commissioned. That point applies to residential care but, in this context, it applies particularly to domiciliary care. We must consider not only how we pay for this, but, alongside that, what we are paying for. We must ask ourselves whether commissioners are commissioning the right things and whether they should, as they do all too often now, be commissioning for blocks of time-such as commissioning 15 minutes for a particular task-or whether there is a better way of commissioning good quality care. We have to ask whether it is acceptable for a different agency care worker to arrive on someone's doorstep every day of the week, when the advantages of having someone they know and trust and for whom they can leave the door open while they take the dog for a walk are considerable.
	Those are substantial issues that are as fundamental as the question of who pays for the care that is delivered. That is why it is regrettable that we are dealing with these issues piecemeal and we do not have the opportunity to consider what is being provided on domiciliary care, as well as who should pay for it. This issue is, as others have said, too important to deal with in a piecemeal fashion. We should not have had to wait for 12 years, from when one Labour Prime Minister said in a conference speech that it was very important to deal with social care and that it would be a disgrace if we did not. Now, suddenly, because another Labour Prime Minister wanted an eye-catching initiative to fill a passage in a speech, we have to legislate in haste to make things happen.
	A potential problem with the Bill is the fact that it has a big title but not much content beneath it. Aside from raising hopes unduly, it would be tragic if we were to miss the opportunity to discuss more substantially, even at the end of this Parliament, the big issues surrounding social care. Another problem with the Bill is the fact that it does not answer with authority questions about whom exactly it would help, how it would help them and how much it would cost to do so. It does not even try to answer the bigger questions that are thrown up by the social care debate for us all to address. That is a shame, and we could and should do better.

Joan Humble: May I begin by apologising to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to right hon. and hon. colleagues, for arriving so late for this important debate? I was in Blackpool with the Secretary of State for Transport, who was making a very important announcement in the town.  [ Interruption. ] I could digress into the electrification of the Blackpool to Preston line, but I shall not. That is a debate for another occasion, especially as I have so little time.
	It is interesting to follow so many Opposition Members, and I am heartened that there seems to be unanimity. I hope that that has been displayed in the essential focus on what the Government are attempting to do, which is to provide care at home, free of charge, to the people who are deemed to be in the most critical need and at most risk. I am surely not the only Member of Parliament who finds, when they speak to adults with disabilities and to elderly people who are in need of social care, that those people much prefer to be cared for in their homes. The more domiciliary care that we can offer to such people, therefore, the better. Lest anyone should misunderstand me, let me explain that I visit a lot of residential care and nursing homes, many of which are of a high quality. Representing a seaside town, as I do, I know that many people retire to the seaside and that some prefer to go into residential care when they are very elderly. The majority of those whom I meet, however, would much rather be supported in their own homes. That is why the Bill is so important. I have not met one such person who has disputed what we are trying to do.
	Everybody that I have mentioned the Bill to fully welcomes it, so let us start from that premise and move on to the questions that we need to ask so that we can get things right. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Chloe Smith) made that point. We need to get the issue right, and to do so we need clarity about the sorts of people to whom we are providing a service, how that service will be assessed and whether there is sufficient funding to pay for a quality service. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister cares passionately about social care, and he will also want to get things right and to ensure that those issues are addressed and explored in more detail as the Bill goes through the House.
	I, too, want to place the Bill in the context of the Green Paper-an exciting document that cannot be seen in isolation. I disagree with Opposition Members on this point. It is a mistake to look at what has happened in social care simply through White Papers, Green Papers and royal commissions, because an awful lot has been happening on the ground. There has been a transformation in the delivery of social care with the whole personalisation agenda, direct payments and individual budgets. Also, the way in which professional social workers assess the needs of their client groups has changed dramatically. I want to ask the Minister how all those positive moves in the personalisation agenda can be carried forward in the Bill.
	We need to look at the assessment and eligibility criteria. My hon. Friend the Minister is working closely with professional social workers and is doing all he can to raise their status. They need to know how they are to assess need under the Bill. Age Concern has produced a long list of questions, which I am sure he has seen, and he will know the sort of issues that are being raised.
	If a person previously received a personal budget, what would happen to that budget? How will the personalisation agenda affect them? Will they still have a say about the intensive care they are receiving that will no longer be charged? If they are in that critical category, will their informal carers-family members-be able to have a say? The role of informal carers is important and their voice must be heard, but separately from the individual who is being cared for. That individual must have an assessment of their needs and the informal carer too should have an assessment of their needs. To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright), we can do both: we can have an intensive package of domiciliary care for the individual who needs it, while also looking at the needs of the carer. I know of excellent befriending schemes, such as care and repair schemes that offer the gardening help he talked about, or that allow respite care for informal carers.
	The Bill should not be considered in isolation, but as part of the package that is offered.

Jeremy Wright: I accept that we can do both, but there needs to be sufficient flexibility in the system to allow people to have what they want rather than simply to be given what they are expected to take. That is the concern.

Joan Humble: But that is the whole point of the personalisation agenda, and why I very much welcome it. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Norwich, North gave instances of poor service. We have all heard of individuals raised from their beds by people coming in at 6 o'clock in the morning-or at 10 o'clock in the morning or even 12 noon. People should get up when they want to and that is where the personalisation agenda came in. Individuals could choose their carer and tell them, "Right, I've got my personal budget and I am paying you to come in. This is when I want to get up. This is when I want to go to bed, and this is what I want to do in between." I hope the personalisation agenda will be a key process in the implementation of the legislation.
	Appropriate links with the health service will also be a key element. I recently visited the Bispham nurse-led rehabilitation unit in my constituency where I saw excellent rehabilitation reablement work. My hon. Friend the Minister needs to look at linking the rehabilitation reablement work done in the health service with that done in social care. People with the intense needs covered by the Bill will be receiving support from both health and social care. The two organisations have to work together, not just on delivering integrated packages of care but also in the reablement process.
	My final point is about funding. As somebody who spent 12 years in local government, seven of them as chair of Lancashire social services, I am well aware of the pressures on social services budgets. My hon. Friend needs to look carefully at ensuring that there is sufficient money in the system to deliver the quality services that he and I want. With that, I warmly welcome the Bill and I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's comments.

Stephen O'Brien: It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), who is from Conservative-controlled Lancashire.
	As the former Prime Minister, John Major, might have said, this is not an insignificant day. It was another former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who promised at the 1997 Labour party conference that no one should have to sell their home to fund their long-term care. Twelve years on we are debating the first bit of relevant legislation. There were three Labour Back-Bench speeches, none from the Liberal Democrats, and no fewer than six from Conservative Back Benchers. If ever there was a true benchmark of care, that is it.
	One question that Ministers must ponder is how they could do more through the Bill.  Which? called it "a missed opportunity". The House will recall that the policy behind the Bill was announced by the Prime Minister in his speech to his so-called comrades at the Labour party conference. Cleared just 20 minutes before the Prime Minister's announcement, there was no hint of the policy in any of the preceding debate. It undermines the Green Paper process, and the speed of its gestation puts the policy on infirm evidential ground. Let us take, for example, the use of a blog as an authoritative source in paragraph 5.27 of the regulatory impact assessment:
	"see http://healthcare-legislation.blogspot.com/2009/11/does-acturarial-value-trump-medical-loss.html".
	That must be a first.
	Lord Lipsey, who sits on the Labour Benches in the other place, branded the Bill a "gimmick" and said that
	"it is a bad policy but also a very bad way to do policy just to find a nice highlight for your Labour Party conference speech."
	If Ministers can churn out that policy in a couple of days and try to rush it through Parliament with only a single day in Committee of the whole House-patently a ruse to bypass questioning and to bang it through for, as some say, electoral purposes; surely not-and if they can expedite the Bill, could they not also, given that the Green Paper consultation has concluded, support legislation to address some or all of the other parts of the social care waterfront? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) asked in a trenchant speech, "Is that it?"
	One way that the Government could show their earnest in their call for a consensus is by agreeing to amend the Bill to bring into effect our home protection scheme, a policy that deals with another part of the social care agenda, for which the costs can be much more catastrophic to individuals than even those for the critical level of domiciliary care. We never claimed that our scheme would solve all the issues, but it is an essential part of such a solution.
	The House must remember that the Bill deals only with those with critical needs. Those whose needs are substantial, moderate or low are ignored. It addresses only those who stay at home. Those who opt for, or have to go into, residential care are left out. In the Green Paper, the Government said that in 2012 there would be 6 million people with care needs. The policy that we are debating claims to help just 270,000, and even that figure has been called into question. It represents less than 5 per cent. of the total. The point was highlighted against his own Government by the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who said that the Bill covered only a small part of care need, not the total architecture. It is our hope that the Government will expand the Bill's horizon and ambition.
	The Government must do more to assure us that the Bill will not fall foul of the Human Rights Act. It has one of the longest depositions to the human rights committee that I have ever seen. The Government must work hard to suggest that it is not unfair to give people a differing amount of state support, depending on where they live. Many organisations, such as the Learning Disability Coalition, have expressed concern at the perverse incentive that the Bill could provide for people, who would be better in residential care, to stay in domiciliary care against all personalisation principles-the very issue about which the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood expressed concern.
	According to the impact assessment, the purpose of the Bill is
	"Funding care to those in need at the time of their need"-
	close to what the Prime Minister said at his conference, and uniquely for a policy of this Government, seeking to provide peace of mind to everybody. However, the Government changed the purpose for the European convention on human rights sign-off to
	"enabling, supporting and encouraging more people to avoid or delay entering residential accommodation".
	The former and, some might say, real purpose of the Bill might well fall foul of the courts, so we need to ensure that the Bill does not proceed through the House on a flawed basis. That is just one more reason for more time in Committee than the proposed day on the Floor of the House.
	In the course of a comprehensive, tour de force of a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who opened for the Opposition, the concern was also raised that the legislation incentivises care homes to re-brand as extra care. The hon. Member for South Thanet picked up that point, too, although, in an otherwise very fair-minded speech, he did not seem to grasp the argument that the Opposition have cogently made. Given how the Bill might operate, there is no indication that a care home will have to do anything more than bill its residents separately for accommodation on the one hand and care on the other to qualify, under the terms of the Bill, as an establishment that does not provide accommodation together with care. That could bring the whole 500,000-person strong, £1.2 billion cost of residential care within the ambit of the scheme.
	There are questions about reablement, a word that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) found difficult to deal with. Let us call it occupational therapy, if she prefers. Will it be available to those with palliative care needs who can live for many years? Why have the Government assumed that one quarter of people will not be processed-a worrying enough word in itself-each year? Will the Bill's stipulation that reablement must come before free care create a perverse incentive to councils to delay reablement work? That is another key area, and it clearly needs deep Committee scrutiny if we are to get to the bottom of it.
	There is little joy for carers in the Bill, as the assessments will not be carer-blind. The Government have put ever-increasing pressure on carers, and the Bill is likely to exacerbate that. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) echoed that concern in his interventions on value and, even, non-financial value-something about which the Secretary of State was concerned when he was a Minister.
	The Secretary of State has also spread confusion about the NHS "taking over" social care. Despite the pre-briefing, nothing new was announced, but now councils think that they are about to be shot of the problem. Furthermore, the narrow focus on care rather than support might mean that people who could stay in their homes will be driven into residential care. That is the very mischief that the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) persistently, wrongly and, I am sure, without any party political slant at all seeks to portray as the problem, as he perceives it, with our very well-received home protection scheme. Scope says:
	"By overlooking the needs of deafblind people to communication support, the government is in effect excluding a group of people who are most at risk of having to enter residential accommodation."
	Another area with which the Government are, frankly, playing fast and loose is the finances of the scheme, a point clearly and compassionately made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham on behalf of her constituents. They include my elderly parents-in-law, who are in receipt of the very good services in Bromley and, let it be said, vitally, the attendance allowance that helps them to stay in their own home-with all the benefits that that brings.
	The impact assessment provides costing only for two and a quarter years. I have never read an impact assessment that has not costed a policy for at least 10 years. The period of two and a quarter years brings us to a certain magical part of the calendar and is clearly another part of the impact assessment's panic drafting. The Government's own Green Paper looked to 2050, and, in this vital area, that is the span that we all know we must consider.
	The impact assessment confesses that there is "inherent uncertainty" in estimating the costs. I asked the Government, through parliamentary questions, to extrapolate the amount, even using contemporary assumptions, but they repeatedly refused. Doing it myself, therefore, I found that the policy will cost at least £1.2 billion a year by 2030. If their assumptions are wrong by just 1 per cent., and that is almost guaranteed with this Government, that will add about £40 million to a £650 million cost in the first year.
	The Local Government Association is particularly concerned that the Government have "underestimated". If the Government are serious about this policy being part of the reform of the system, they must bring forward the proper costings, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) said in a wide-ranging, exemplary and significant contribution that had his constituents' interests at heart throughout.
	During the general debate on health and social care reform on 29 October, in response to some pressure from Members on the Government Benches, the Secretary of State ruled out funding from general taxation because it would not
	"be fair across the generations to ask the working-age population to pay for the costs of care"
	and
	"it would not be honest or straightforward to give the impression that we can fully fund a care system entirely from general taxation."-[ Official Report, 29 October 2009; Vol. 498, c. 479-81.]
	Those reasons were also cited in the Green Paper. He therefore needs to explain why it is "honest" or "fair" to do that through this policy but not the whole reform, and how a policy clearly at odds with the principle of the Green Paper can be said to be in its direction of travel-a point ably highlighted in a comprehensive speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Chloe Smith). It was precisely this tension that led my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), in a clear and caring speech that focused on his constituents' needs, to argue so powerfully for the detailed and adequate scrutiny of the Bill-that is, in a proper Committee stage instead of one day on the Floor of the House.
	Furthermore, Ministers have not yet come clean on exactly which budgets they are slashing to pay for this measure. Some £250 million, which was spun as a real-terms cut in the pre-Budget report, is set to come from as yet unrealised local government "efficiency savings"; in other words, they are going to spend it on this instead. Many organisations, including the Learning Disability Coalition, Age UK and Sue Ryder Care, have pointed out that this
	"could mean cuts for other people with care needs".
	The LGA has said:
	"It is difficult to see how local government could meet the cost of this proposal from current plans for efficiency savings, without the lifting of other burdens."
	When pressed through parliamentary questions, Ministers have given the reply, devoid of hope for these organisations, that setting charges for social care is a matter for local authorities. We know that the Government are also taking it out of research budgets but have not yet identified which ones, generating great concern particularly among cancer charities and-as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright), whose speech was, as always so focused given the information and expertise that he has in chairing the all-party group on dementia-among dementia charities, to whom the Minister of State only recently pledged more funding. The Government are also taking it out of the NHS IT budget, which funds a programme that, according to Ministers, was all about patient safety, patient care and a more efficient use of public money-until last weekend, when it became, to quote the Chancellor,
	"frankly...not essential for the front line".
	It is important that Ministers clarify exactly where the money is coming from. The House will see that this scrabbling together of money from different pots shows that the Government seem to have no idea of how to fund this measure in the long term.
	On the positive side, one of the exciting additions to the Bill could be legislation to underpin our home protection scheme. This would enable every 65-year-old to buy into a risk pool at the cost of £8,000 or so, insuring them against the catastrophic costs of admission to residential care. It delivers on Tony Blair's promise in 1997 to stop people having to sell their homes to pay for their long-term care; last year, 45,000 people had to do just that. These people probably did not grow up with parents who owned property but have been enabled to get on to the property ladder, many in the 1980s, and who could have given their children and grandchildren a start in life that they themselves could never have dreamed of. Instead, once again, the Government have got rid of a driver of social mobility. Of course, the policy will be attractive only to those who would otherwise fail the means test; it is right that those with assets under £23,000 should continue to be supported by the taxpayer.
	This is not the time for a litany of failure on social care-the point is made by the gap between Tony Blair's 1997 pledge and this Bill, which shows only the first glimmer of full-scale reform. So much for the demand made, not least by Conservative Members, that truth be given to the aspiration allegedly contained in the Green Paper. In the last general debate, the Secretary of State spoke of his desire to create "unstoppable momentum" for reform. It is a somewhat plaintive cry as he positions himself, I would argue, for the future and his campaign for the Labour leadership. We wish him well; he would be a great asset to us. If he truly wants to create that momentum, he will work with us, not against us. Despite his confession to me, some months ago, that he is tribal at heart, I hope that he can none the less see a way to working with us. A beginning would be to give the Bill due time in Committee, not just a day on the Floor of the House. Of course we must and will divide the House to oppose the programme motion, while not opposing Second Reading. As I have said and as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire said in his opening speech, the Bill contains some worthwhile provisions but should be set in an overall architecture, rather than the Government taking this spatchcock approach to legislation.
	My favourite part of the regulatory impact assessment is paragraph 5.29, which notes the risk that
	"current research and evidence available does not accurately estimate the true numbers who may come forth to seek assessment and services."
	The archaism "come forth" suggests a draftsman who sees the policy for what it is, but it also gives us some ground for optimism-those are, after all, the words that brought Lazarus from the grave. I hope that if Ministers are willing, we can resurrect social care reform across the whole spectrum of care in this Parliament rather than be forced to wait for the next, when the House can be assured that if given the chance, we will act.

Phil Hope: The question of how we create a fairer, more affordable system of care and support is one of the defining issues of our day. From my visits to people being looked after in their own homes and my meetings with carers, I know how much it matters to individuals, families and communities. It is a subject that deserves serious, non-partisan discussion in the House. We have had many contributions worthy of it, and I welcome the forewarning that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) gave me before the Committee stage in the new year, with his detailed questions about the impact assessment. I look forward to debating them further in due course.
	Apart from the final contribution by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), we have had a welcome absence of scaremongering or political point scoring. At the start of the debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State laid out the challenge ahead and explained how the changes to our society in demography, life expectancy and better medical treatment spell out the need for decisive action on social care.
	We know the salient facts. This is a country with more pensioners than people under the age of 16. The Office for National Statistics suggests that by 2033 the number of people aged over 85 will rise from 1.3 million to 3.3 million and the ratio of working-age adults to pensioners-the so-called dependency ratio-will drop below three. By 2050, it will fall to the point at which there will be only two working adults for every pensioner. The facts speak volumes about the need for bold and far-reaching reform. The message is stark: without radical action, our ability to meet the needs of our ageing population will decrease, and the unfairness that we already see across the care system will mount year on year.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), who said that there had been a transformation in social care over the past few years. That was in stark contrast to the views of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, who opened his remarks by criticising the lack of action. He neglected to tell the House about the 50 per cent. real-terms spending increase on adult social services since 1997, or the £500 million grant given to councils in the past three years to help personalise social care services and pursue the personalisation agenda that many Opposition Members reminded us about. He neglected to mention our efforts through the national dementia strategy, which I had the privilege of launching earlier this year, or the ministerial research group that I launched following the national summit to ensure that more resources go into researching the causes of and cures for dementia and the care of people with it.
	The hon. Gentleman did not mention the work under way through the carers strategy to support the friends and families who make such an important contribution to our society, the existence of 11,000 dignity champions throughout our health and social care system, or the fact that the Care Quality Commission report on care and council performance published earlier this month showed that 80 per cent. of homes and agencies and 95 per cent. of councils were rated as "good" or "excellent". Opposition Front Benchers completely ignored and overlooked all that progress.
	Despite the progress, we know that the structural changes in our society call for wholesale reform of our care system. That is why our proposal to create a national care service, which many Opposition Members have lauded and applauded so much this evening, is so important. I am delighted that so many hon. Members have now seen the light and are following Labour's lead in forming a National Care Service for the future, which will be fairer, simpler and more affordable, underpinned by national rights and clear entitlements, driven by quality and built around the individual's needs.
	Many hon. Members discussed the importance of improving quality. Let me remind the House of what we are doing on raising skills in the work force-another issue that has been debated this evening. For example, we have created a National Skills Academy for Social Care, driving forward training, development and career progression for the adult social care work force. Our social work taskforce sets out how we further support the social work profession. We are doing more to attract young people into the care work force, not least under our "Care First" career scheme, which was launched earlier this year, and by creating an extra 1,000 apprenticeships opportunities.
	We are also ensuring that a clear and wide range of interventions are available. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire was highly critical, but he forgot about "Putting People First" and the £60 million we made available to local authorities to encourage investment in telecare and supportive mechanisms to help people in their own homes. Our recent publication on the use of resources further promotes the use of such early interventions and preventive responses. Therefore, to suggest that there has not been a period of investment, reform and change over the past 10 years is to deny and ignore completely what has happened; and frankly, it will leave those who have done so much work on the ground feeling that the Conservatives do not know or care about their work.
	The Bill is part of that journey and an important bridge to a National Care Service. Let me set out clearly what it stands for. First and foremost, it represents action now for 280,000 people with the highest level of need-those with advance dementia and Parkinson's disease. It will remove the unfair burden of cost on those people and their families. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) made a heartfelt plea, based not least on her experience of working with people with dementia, for more help now to prevent the unnecessary admission of people with advanced dementia to hospital.  [ Interruption. ] I share her concern about that, yet for five hours, Tory Members have found reason after reason for not going ahead with the Bill. We have heard them say, "It's only a part of the jigsaw, so do nothing"- [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: May I just interrupt the Minister of State for a moment? There are a lot of private conversations taking place on both sides of the Chamber, including on the Government Front Bench. The consequence is that the oration of the Minister of State is not receiving the close attention that he will think it deserves.

Phil Hope: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	The Conservatives said that it is only a part of the jigsaw, so do nothing-those were the words of the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Chloe Smith). They say, "It is political posturing in front of an election, so do nothing. We need a bigger reform, so don't do this one. It will cost too much given our cuts policies for the next few years, so do nothing." We understand the Conservative position on the Bill: it is to do nothing for someone requiring 17 hours of personal care a week or intimate care, including help with eating, drinking, washing, dressing and toileting, who could be paying about £13,000 a year out of their savings. They would not get any help with that because the Tory party would do nothing.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way in the midst of the non-partisan discussion he said he was going to have this evening, but when is he actually going to reply to the debate? For example, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) talked about advanced dementia. I was in a dementia ward last week- [ Interruption. ] That is not very funny. I was in a dementia ward last week and was told of a patient who had been discharged home to die and did not have access to NHS continuing care. The hon. Gentleman made a valid point. When there is serious advanced dementia, why is NHS continuing care not meeting that need, rather than having someone depend on personal care under the Bill?

Phil Hope: We have not got the time to get into the details of what happens if somebody has continuing needs with dementia. They have both health needs and care needs. The point that the hon. Gentleman has made about the Bill is clear-those on the Tory Benches would do nothing. They suggest that we would not provide the care at home in cases of advanced dementia that we all know is needed.

Tobias Ellwood: rose-

Phil Hope: I am not going to give way, because I want to address the point made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire and answer some of the other points that he and his hon. Friends made in saying that under the Bill, such care would be free.
	I regret that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) does not share our concern about families who have had to run down their savings and now face high costs because of high needs. The people who will benefit from this Bill mostly do not have high incomes relative to the population as a whole. It is the cost of care for those people that would be met, and it would be driven through personal budgets-a key issue that many hon. Members raised-so that they get real choice and real control over the kind of services they need to live their lives as they want to.
	Many hon. Members also supported the principle of reablement support to help lift another 130,000 people at a low point in their lives, perhaps after a bereavement, a fall or a period in hospital. Reablement will help people to regain or retain their independence. The Bill will help us to drive forward a process to provide reablement care not just in a few councils but in every council, so that people will get the physiotherapy and personal support to learn how to perform daily tasks after an illness or injury. They will also get the adaptations to their home to make it wheelchair friendly. We will use new technology and telecare such as alarms and electronic pill dispensers to improve safety. By extending that support to those with lower level needs, we can help to reduce the isolation that can occur and keep these people active. We can prevent people from slipping to the point where more intensive care and support is required.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) raised the question of carers' support needs being met. As part of the user's assessment, there will be an opportunity to consider the carer's needs in designing the care and support package. The carer will also be entitled to ask for a specific care assessment to ensure that their needs are identified. I regret the hon. Member for Eddisbury's claim that this Bill will create more of a burden on carers. It will help to free up financial resources, which can then be spent to alleviate the caring burden.
	Questions were raised about discrimination between those in residential care and those being cared for at home. I draw hon. Members' attention to the explanatory notes that accompany the Bill and spell out clearly why the different treatment of people living at home is not discriminatory. In the time I have, I cannot spell out the details, but hon. Members can read the notes.
	Caring for the most vulnerable in our society is now quite rightly taking centre stage in our politics. It is an issue that arouses strong feeling, and a challenge that this Government are determined to tackle in the fairest possible way. We have a long way to go to create a National Care Service and to do for social care what the NHS has done for health care-to eradicate the fear and uncertainty that surrounds people with care needs.
	We said when we launched the Green Paper that we wanted to build an unstoppable momentum on this issue. Failure to take forward radical reform would compound the unfairness, would mean an inadequate care budget being stretched to breaking point, and would mean more and more people being denied the help they need. I do not want to live in that sort of society-in a dog-eat-dog world where people have to fight tooth and nail to get the care they need. Today's Bill is about turning our backs on that depressing vision and embracing a future in which care is provided on the basis of need, not wealth. Unquestionably, there will be challenges ahead to improve quality, provide guarantees of services and standards and end the lottery in social care. However, today we take a decisive and necessary step forward, and I commend this Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time.

PERSONAL CARE AT HOME BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, (Standing Order No. 8 3 A)(7)),
	1. That the following provisions shall apply to the Personal Care at Home Bill:
	 Committal
	The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
	 Proceedings in Committee, on consideration and Third Reading
	2. Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at one day's sitting.
	3. Proceedings in Committee and any proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	5. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading.
	 Other proceedings
	6. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.- (Mr. Blizzard.)
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 266, Noes 182.

Question accordingly agreed to.

PERSONAL CARE AT HOME BILL (MONEY)

Queen's recommendation signified.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
	That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to any Act arising out of the Personal Care at Home Bill in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided, for the purpose of removing the restriction on the period for which personal care may be provided free of charge to persons living at home .-(Lyn Brown.)
	 Question agreed to.

Business of the House

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 15),
	That, at this day's sitting, proceedings on the Motion in the name of Ms Harriet Harman relating to Regional Select Committee (London) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. -(Lyn Brown.)
	 Question agreed to.

deferred divisions

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A),
	That, at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the motion in the name of Ms Harriet Harman relating to Regional Select Committee (London) and the motion in the name of Sarah McCarthy-Fry relating to Climate Change Levy. -(Lyn Brown.)
	 Question agreed to.

Business without Debate

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 56), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time.
	 Question put forthwith, That the Bill be now read a Third time.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

delegated legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Climate Change Levy

That the draft Climate Change Levy (Solid Fuel) (Revocation) Regulations 2009, which were laid before this House on 10 November, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved. -(Lyn Brown.)
	 Question agreed to.

Regional Select Committee (London)

Barbara Keeley: I beg to move,
	That Ms Karen Buck, Jeremy Corbyn, Clive Efford, Siobhain McDonagh, Mr Andy Slaughter and Mr Andrew Pelling be members of the London Regional Select Committee.
	On 12 November, 2008, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House committed to bring proposals to the House to establish a Regional Select Committee for London. The House debated and resolved to set up the Committee on 25 June this year. The motion simply asks the House to agree the names for the Committee. The House has already resolved to establish the Committee, which should now be given the opportunity to meet and to take forward its business. My party has nominated five members who are all respected Members of this House and who will, I believe, do a good job of holding to account the Government's activities in London, so I commend the motion to the House.

Justine Greening: I intend to challenge the Government's motion, but I think it might be a good idea first to establish, briefly, the Select Committee's purpose, so that we can assess whether its proposed members will be able to do a good job.
	In June, when we first discussed this topic on the Floor of the House, the Leader of the House spoke of an accountability gap. I think that many Members-certainly Conservative Members-felt that there was an accountability gap in democracy in Britain, but that it had less to do with the London Committee than with a Prime Minister who refused to call a general election.
	The Leader of the House seemed to feel that, although we had a Mayor of London, a London assembly, a Government office for London and a plethora of London Members of Parliament, that was somehow not enough. She clearly feared that some issues, such as Heathrow, might slip through the net and not be debated properly. She clearly also feared that the work of, I think, 41 other Select Committees would not be sufficient, and that we would therefore need a further Select Committee to examine London issues in particular.
	That is interesting, because London issues have already been examined by many Select Committees, as is clear from the many Select Committee reports on London that have been produced over the past five years. Leafing through them, I spotted a report on the congestion charge by the Transport Committee, which I understand also recently examined the London underground. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee conducted a special inquiry into the London Olympics. The Education and Skills Committee, when it still existed, looked into skills in London. I am sure that many Members were concerned to read the report of the Home Affairs Committee-

Andrew Dismore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The motion relates simply to membership of the Committee. It was not intended to lead to a debate on whether the Committee should exist in the first place. The issue before the House is not whether we should have a Committee, but who should be on it.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I respond to the point of order, let me say that I am a bit worried about the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). I am concerned about his health. I do not want him to erupt, but I am concerned that he might pop. Anyone would think that some Members had had an exceptionally good dinner.
	What I want to say to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore)- [Interruption.] Order. Members should want to hear what I am going to say to the hon. Member for Hendon. What I want to say to the hon. Member for Hendon is that he is, of course, correct-that is indeed the thrust and the limit of the motion before us-but, as he knows, I am a person of generous spirit.  [Interruption.] Order. It is perfectly legitimate for the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) to make some opening remarks by way of background, and I know that she now intends swiftly to focus on the narrow terms of the motion.

Justine Greening: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I did not intend to dwell for too long on some of the other Select Committee reports, which deal with issues such as knife crime.

Peter Bone: Before the House can make up its mind about whether individual Members are right for the Select Committee, surely we should know whether they have been on other Select Committees that have dealt with London matters.

Justine Greening: That is a good point. I am sure that investigation would reveal first whether those Members had been on those Select Committees, and secondly whether they had participated. I think that many London Members confronted by this limited group of names will wonder why they have been left out. For example, why should we not have London questions, given that we have Welsh questions and Scottish questions?

Angela Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Members listed on the Order Paper have been appointed to an entirely superfluous body which will merely duplicate and triplicate work that is already being done perfectly adequately elsewhere?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Barbara Keeley: It appears to be being suggested that there are restrictions in respect of the names that can be put forward. It is open for Opposition Members to put forward other names, however, and I hope that they do so.

Justine Greening: Another problem is that this is costly. It is a cost that the taxpayer cannot afford, yet many Members who represent London constituencies are excluded. We could have London questions. Many of us would be willing to give that a go. We could all participate in that. We could also have a London annual debate-I understand that we used to have one-in which, again, all Members representing London seats could participate.

Lee Scott: Does my hon. Friend agree that not many of our constituents have knocked on our doors saying they want an extra layer of government to be brought in?

Justine Greening: That is right. Throughout the country, people's concern is about not the quantity of government, but the quality.

Bob Spink: Although I agree with the hon. Lady on the efficacy of the motion, will she not at least concede that tonight's debate is about who is to serve on this Committee, that the two Members proposed are both exemplary London Members, and that we should vote for them to serve on it?

Justine Greening: No, I do not agree at all, and I shall come on to why I have a problem with the names that the House has been presented with later on-or, rather, very shortly, Mr. Speaker.

Stephen Hammond: Is not the nub of the issue what my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) said, which is simply that, regardless of who we put on to the Committee, its purpose is to scrutinise regional bodies, but a lot of London's regional bodies report to the Mayor and there is already scrutiny of the Mayor, so this is complete duplication?

Justine Greening: Yes, it is complete duplication, and I think it is worse than that, because we have a London assembly, and this London Select Committee is a direct vote of no confidence-

Tom Levitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to your answer to the recent point of order, I note that the hon. Lady has still not got around to talking about the people named on the Order Paper. Surely she should do so straight away.

Mr. Speaker: I feel absolutely confident that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking to do the work of the Chair. I know that he is a very courteous fellow, and that he recognises both what are his responsibilities and what are not. I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I shall go about the business in a proper manner.

Justine Greening: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, one of the worst aspects of the motion is that it is a direct vote of no confidence by Ministers and the Government in the London assembly that they set up. Ultimately, as my-

Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the eloquence of the hon. Lady's flow, but I am afraid that we really cannot go into that matter tonight for the simple reason that it has already been considered and decided by the House. The only matter to be determined tonight in respect of this motion is the list of names of people to be appointed, upon which I know the hon. Lady will now immediately focus.

Justine Greening: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me such a brilliant introduction to the next part of my remarks, because our final objection to the motion is that, at its heart, it is interfering, and that brings me on to the matter of the Members who are proposed.

Bob Neill: I am sure that my hon. Friend is about to make a very similar point to this, but the London assembly is deliberately designed to give a clear distribution of representation across the whole of London, so that all London boroughs, whose relationship with the Mayor as the strategic authority is crucial to the delivery of London-wide services, are fairly represented, whereas the list of Members proposed indicates a very tight geographical distribution and-

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall be charitable to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) by concluding that he merely did not hear my ruling of a few moments ago to the hon. Member for Putney, because if he had heard it, I know that as he is a lawyer and an obedient sort of fellow, he would not have made a disorderly point of the kind that he has just made.

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend refers to the fact that one of the problems with this Select Committee is that it does not necessarily have to have Members representing London committees on it, nor does it have to have any kind of composition that reflects London's seats or the London assembly.

Barbara Keeley: rose-

Justine Greening: I want to make some progress, but I will give way.

Barbara Keeley: I should point out that only London Members have been nominated this evening.

Justine Greening: The Deputy Leader of the House is, of course, right on this occasion, but it is instructive to consider the constituencies that these Members represent and make the comparison with the London assembly members who have been elected by those communities. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) is not from the same party as the London assembly member for London West Central. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) is not from the same party as the London assembly member that Londoners elected to represent Merton and Wandsworth. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter) is not from the same party as the London assembly member-

Barbara Keeley: rose-

Justine Greening: I shall give way.

Barbara Keeley: It seems as though the hon. Lady would really like to nominate some Members from her party, and I invite her to do so. If she wants to balance out the list, she should name some names.

Justine Greening: Conservative Members know exactly how to raise London issues in this Chamber. We raise them every day that the House sits, in oral questions, in Westminster Hall debates, in Adjournment debates and whenever else we get the chance-we do not need a London Select Committee in order to hold Ministers to account.
	I was talking about the constituencies that these Members represent-I can see that you find that interesting, Mr. Speaker-but I now want to discuss my concerns as to whether these Members have really reflected the wishes of Londoners when they have had the chance to represent them. One cannot help but reflect on our post office closure debate earlier last year. Londoners were extremely concerned and troubled about this matter -[Interruption.] I shall tell Labour Members what it has to do with this. Several of these Members actually voted to shut post offices when they had the chance, and I think that many Londoners would be concerned to see the ruling party put them on a Select Committee that is meant to scrutinise London issues on their behalf.
	Another major issue of concern to my constituents is Heathrow. Several of the MPs being proposed for membership of this Committee voted to expand the airport when they had the chance to do so. Again, that went against the direct wishes of millions of Londoners-these Londoners voted in the Mayor, who would stand up for them on that issue. We have concerns about whether these MPs truly are the right ones to serve on a London Committee.

Andrew Robathan: I note that some of those named on the Order Paper are not here tonight. Will my hon. Friend consider-if this were possible in your eyes, Mr. Speaker-tabling a manuscript amendment to nominate the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), for example, who is here and who takes an active interest in proceedings? Obviously he would be better than those, such as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who have not bothered to turn up.

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. I think that most people would be concerned if the hon. Member for Hendon were on a Select Committee, because his questions might be longer than the actual evidence given to it.
	I was looking through the résumés of some of those proposed. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) is in the Chamber tonight. It may be that he is, once again, attending the Pugwash conference-he went to the one in Canada last year. We have some concerns and we are not convinced that this is the right way to go.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) makes a very good point. Would it be in order to table a manuscript amendment that only people attending this debate could serve on the Committee?

Mr. Speaker: I do not want to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman-or perhaps I do-but I fear that rather than responding directly to his observation, I must say that it was not a point of order, as he, as a very experienced Member, knows. It was, however, an interesting point of debate.

Justine Greening: I shall start to conclude my comments, because I know, from talking to them in the Lobby earlier, that many other Members want the chance to express their concerns. Suffice it to say that this just is not good enough. The Select Committee will be in place for the term of this Parliament. It could only be a matter of days, hopefully, but it is more likely to be just a matter of months before this Parliament finishes. Even this Prime Minister will have to call an election eventually. There is simply no time for a Select Committee, even if a full set of members is nominated to serve on it, to conduct any meaningful inquiries.

Barbara Keeley: There has been a lot of support for the work of the parliamentary reform Committee, which had much less time than that.

Justine Greening: I simply do not agree with the Deputy Leader of the House. I think that we need to take these issues case by case. The reality is that this will be another talking shop that costs taxpayers more money at the time that they can least afford it. It will have members who many people outside this House will feel have not, when it came to the crunch on key London issues that mattered to them, had a track record of scrutinising this Government.

David Burrowes: My hon. Friend talks about the election, and obviously Boris Johnson was elected as Mayor for London. Is not the concern that the genie of devolved government has got out of the bottle and that that genie is now blue, in the form of Boris Johnson? The problem is that the Government want to put that genie back in the bottle, but they cannot do that and so we have a costly, expensive, waste-of-time exercise in the form of this Committee.

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is right, of course. That is the ultimate accountability gap that the Government have a problem with. It is not about accountability between this House and the Mayor, but the fact that Londoners voted for the wrong Mayor from the wrong party, in Ministers' opinion. They need to understand that there is an accountability gap, but that the only way in which it will be closed is if their Prime Minister has the guts finally to call an election and to give not just Londoners but the whole of this country the chance to vote them out and to vote in a Government who will do some work on people's behalf. What we get with this Government is pure private interest.

Robert Smith: I certainly agree that it is time for a general election, and the Prime Minister should call one rather than trying to do any more in the dying days of this Parliament, so that the country can get on and make the Government accountable.
	On the specific issue of the regional Select Committee and its members, it is important to recognise the background. Yet again, the Government, through their majority, are imposing reform and accountability on this House rather than building consensus for that reform. The Government's failure to engage with other parties to build cross-party consensus in introducing regional Committees has undermined the prospect of their being successful and their legitimacy.
	It would be a success if the Government withdrew the motion, engaged with the other parties and came forward with proper reforms of accountability that engage the whole House. If there is a Division, the Liberal Democrats will vote against the motion, not specifically because of the proposed members of the Committee, but in protest at the way in which the Government have handled the regional Select Committee process.

John Randall: May I say what a great pleasure it is to take part in this debate? These debates about London matter. For many years I have regarded myself as somebody who is from Middlesex rather than London, and I still do so, but I have to respect the fact that London is now something a bit bigger. When considering these Committees-I understand that we are considering who will sit on the London Committee-I want to know the regionality of the proposed members in the context of the historic counties. I am thinking hard about that. The area represented by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), who is present, is probably in the historic county of Middlesex, although I do not know whether she regards it as such. The constituency of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) is a little more difficult for me; I do not know whether anyone can help me with the regionality of Islington.

Bob Neill: If it is of any assistance to my hon. Friend, I understand that Islington was originally in the historic shrieval county of Middlesex but was subsequently incorporated into the London county council area by a London county council Act back in the 1880s.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) will understand when I say that we do not want a dewy-eyed, romantic debate about- [ Interruption. ] Order. The House does not want a dewy-eyed, romantic debate about geography. We are focusing, and I know that he will now focus his remarks not on geographical areas, but upon the particular qualities of the Members proposed for the Committee.

John Randall: I apologise to you profusely, Mr. Speaker. It is a fault of mine to be dewy-eyed from time to time when I think about the glory of Middlesex and when I think of metroland. However, I will move on.
	In today's world, sadly, the county shires have gone and we are talking about London boroughs. That is not exactly a forward move, in my opinion, but it has happened. The hon. Member for Islington, North sometimes represents some of the more interesting republics of the world, such as Cuba, but he is a very good Member of the House. I see him on the list of Committee members and think, "That's rather good." He is an interesting choice, because I know a little about how these Committees are selected by those wonderful people called the Whips. I know that you have a great respect for them yourself, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, I know that that would have been one of your ambitions had you not been called to higher office.  [ Laughter. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that that was his ambition for me, but we will not go further into that.

John Randall: I have many ambitions for you, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, because of your high office and despite your being a resident of London, I cannot put forward a manuscript amendment to put you on the Committee.

Patrick McLoughlin: Before my hon. Friend finishes singing the praises of the hon. Member for Islington, North, will he remind the House that, along with the hon. Gentleman, he was one of those who robustly opposed the former Prime Minister regarding his war on Iraq?

John Randall: I hate to bring politics into this debate. My right hon. Friend reminds me of the point that I was making about the hon. Member for Islington, North, who could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as one of the usual suspects or one of the Whips' narks. I therefore regard his appointment as rather interesting and something that I should like to support.
	Let me return to the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, for whom I also have a great deal of respect. Years ago, we sat on the Committee that considered the Bill that became the Greater London Authority Act 1999. What a fantastic Committee that was to serve on, for many happy hours. Sadly, many of the other hon. Members on that Committee have now gone or passed away. The hon. Lady sat through many of those Committee sittings, as is the wont of Government Members who are not able to speak. Perhaps she would speak more on this London Committee; she is a great expert on housing in London. I respect her for that, so hers is a very useful appointment to the Committee.
	The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford)-my wife was born in Eltham-and I have crossed swords on various things. He was on the Transport Committee with me, which was very interesting. I have to say though that we differ about the expansion of Heathrow. As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) said, Heathrow expansion is a very important matter for the whole of London.
	I know that the Whips want to do the job properly-we always do. We want to make sure that democracy is seen to be done in the fullest and best way. I looked down the list of members and just when I thought I was getting cynical, just when I began to think that the Committee would be full of people who were for the third runway at Heathrow, I saw the name of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter). He and I are old friends. Back in '97, he stood against me in a by-election. What a charming man he was-he let me win. I am sure he did so out of the goodness of his heart, and if it comes to a vote I might find it difficult in my heart to say that the man who let me come into this place to serve my Uxbridge constituents might not be allowed to be on the Committee.
	Since the hon. Gentleman ceased to be a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department for Transport, he has been a redoubtable opponent of the third runway. Maybe-just maybe-there is some balance in the list.

Greg Knight: I am sure that my hon. Friend comes to the debate with clean hands, but perhaps not dry hands, because behind the scenes he plays a part in the selection process. One of the criticisms we have faced from the Government Benches is that there have been no nominations from the Opposition. Can my hon. Friend tell the House, therefore, how it is that the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) appears on the list?

John Randall: My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point that I would have come to later. Presumably, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) has been put on by the Government Whips, and the Committee of Selection has put his name forward. I do not know, but perhaps it is something we should explore. In fact, I see the hon. Gentleman poised like a crouching tiger, so he may want to raise that point.

Andrew Pelling: It was a novel approach. No Whips were involved. I volunteered.

John Randall: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman-my erstwhile Friend. I wonder whether Members on both sides of the House realise how easy it is to get on one of these Committees. All they have to do is volunteer. I am not sure about our side, because as you know, Mr. Speaker, we are not keen on this Committee, for the reasons my hon. Friend the Member for Putney gave. I do not want to go down that line, but the Committee does seem a complete waste of time.

Andrew Robathan: It does indeed seem a complete waste of time, but it seems likely that the Chairman of the Committee will be paid an extra salary, or is that not the case? If it is the case, should not any Member put forward for the Committee abstain from voting, because there will be a conflict of interest?

John Randall: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. From the look on the faces of those on the Government Benches, I am afraid he is incorrect. The role of Chairman will not be a paid position, and the House welcomes that. My hon. Friend and I go back a long way-

Andrew Robathan: How long?

John Randall: A very long way, but I think he is wrong on this point. Everybody has a right to vote on the motion.

Stephen Hammond: As a relative newcomer to the House, I listened intently to my hon. Friend's words about procedure and about some of the Members who will serve on the Committee. He made the point that Government members of Select Committees usually stay silent. Given that the Committee will be made up of Government appointees and volunteers, will it be a silent Committee?

John Randall: Is it not sad to find such cynicism? As you know as a former member of the Chairmen's Panel, Mr. Speaker, before you reached your great position, it is accepted on Standing Committees that Government members will be quiet, and on a Select Committee Government members will do very much as they are told. I cannot see the proposed Committee being any different.

Andrew Pelling: I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman's sarcasm, but does he not think that if what he describes is how the House conducts its affairs, there is something rotten about this place?

John Randall: Even more cynicism.  [Interruption.] As an excellent voice behind me says, perhaps that cynicism could be removed by an election, letting the people of this country decide what they want.

Jim Sheridan: It may be lost on the hon. Gentleman that we have just had an election in this country, and his party lost severely. What part of the new Tory one-party project did the people of Glasgow, North-East misunderstand?

John Randall: Don't you just love the Scots, Mr. Speaker? Marvellous. I could, although I am sure you would tell me off for this-

Jim Sheridan: Answer the question.

John Randall: We have had national elections, European elections and a few others. Remind me where the Labour party came in the European elections.

Hon. Members: Bottom!

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is being led astray, and I know that he would not want to be led astray. He will want to return to the list, with a number of whose members he has dealt, but there are at least one or two whom he has not yet mentioned. He may have further suggestions and he needs to come on to them.

John Randall: I am incredibly grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, as always. I was led astray. I have some Scottish blood in me. When I heard the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan), I thought I must continue the argument, but I will not. I will get back to the point.

John Redwood: Let me help my hon. Friend, who is making an interesting contribution. I came here to vote against the names proposed because I think they are the wrong people for the wrong Committee. He seems to be praising them. Will he give me some arguments so that I can vote against them?

John Randall: I am not here to upset people on the other side of the House. When it comes to general elections, there may be many arguments why the people on the list will not be suitable for re-election, but this debate is not about re-election. This is not about how they have let the country down, how the country is in a very bad way and all the rest of it. This is about serving on a regional Select Committee-a Select Committee that we think is a complete waste of time.
	However, Mr. Speaker, you entreated me to mention some other names. One of the things that I would like to ask the Government is why they have omitted some of the stars on their Benches. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) is a shining example of somebody who could speak endlessly for the Select Committee. I come in on many a Friday, and I am just amazed by his elocution and his ability to talk about not very much. That might make him a very worthy member of the Select Committee.
	I have now seen enter the Chamber and sit on the Labour Benches somebody of whom I genuinely want to speak highly. I do not think that it would be fair for me to say- [ Interruption. ] I shall name him, but my hon. Friends should control themselves.

Geoffrey Cox: It's Denis.

John Randall: No. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), my constituency neighbour, is genuinely free-minded. He is far devolved from me in politics. He is a little to the right of me, I think, and he would not let me join the Campaign group, because he said that I was too left wing. The reason why he has not been suggested for the Committee may not be that he rebels against the Government; it may be that he spends a lot of time doing other things in his constituency and, rather like me, feels that this Regional Select Committee might be a waste of his time.

David Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Randall: Why not?

David Davies: My hon. Friend just mentioned the importance of the Members listed in the motion working hard in their constituencies. If this Regional Select Committee is set up, it may well, like the Welsh Affairs Committee on which I have the pleasure of serving, spend some of its time on visits abroad, taking Members away from their constituency. Does my hon. Friend think that a good or bad thing?

John Randall: I am absolutely sure that this Select Committee will not venture far. It may not even cross the M25. There are so many issues in London which we Conservatives want to discuss, albeit it in another place and not in this forum, but even the Government, while they are setting up this Committee-

Christopher Chope: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Randall: Of course.

Christopher Chope: In discussing possible members of the Committee, why did my hon. Friend not refer to the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton)? He has 30 years' experience of what has happened in Wandsworth council-delivering the lowest community charge or council tax in the country.

John Randall: The reason why I did not consider the hon. Gentleman is that he had nothing to do with delivering the lowest council tax, and if he had his way it would be put up.

Andrew Robathan: As we are considering possible members, does my hon. Friend recall that the definition of a cockney used to be that he or she was born within the sound of Bow bells? Can he think of anybody who has experience of bells ringing or bell towers who might add to the experience of the Committee?

John Randall: My hon. Friend leads me up to a line that I shall not go down. I am not a sheep that will be led easily on these matters.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman is not going to go down that route, and there are two very good reasons why he should not. First, it would of course be constitutionally absurd for him to propose a member of Her Majesty's Government as a member of this Select Committee- [ Interruption. ] That is the position, I am telling the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway), for his benefit and that of the House. Secondly, the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) should not be proposing for membership of the Committee a Member representing a Lincolnshire constituency.

John Randall: I would agree-

Stephen Crabb: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Randall: I think that I may have to.

Stephen Crabb: If we take the example of the Welsh Affairs Committee, on which, indeed, there are Members who represent constituencies outside the Principality, why could not Members from outside London sit on the London Committee?

John Randall: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell my hon. Friend that the reason nobody from outside London can sit on this Committee is that you, Sir, have spoken, and your word is law. If you, Sir, have made a pronouncement that this regional Select Committee for London shall never, ever have a member who sits outside London, then, whether it is constitutional or not, I would regard it as gospel.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his helpful confirmation that he will accept the will of the Chair, but I think he really knows that I am gently encouraging him to concentrate on the people he would like to see as members of the Committee and not to spend an enormous amount of time dilating on the reasons why somebody should not be a member of the Committee.

John Randall: I have to say, Mr. Speaker, how genuinely grateful I am for your guidance on these matters. The hour is getting late, and I feel that sometimes somebody like me, who is not used to public speaking, will benefit from your guidance.

Jim Sheridan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have been a great advocate of trying to modernise this House and make it relevant to the people outside and the people inside. The behaviour of the official Opposition tonight is disgraceful. The public schoolboy attitude of Conservative Members demonstrates their insincerity. Every Thursday, you and I hear the shadow Leader of the House complaining about the lack of time for parliamentary debates. The way they are behaving tonight is an absolute disgrace-they are purely filibustering and trying to waste time, and the general public will see them for what they are.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Would that I could describe that as a point of order; I am not sure that it quite qualifies for that description. However, he has registered his views with great force, and they are now firmly on the record.

Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the motion in the name of the Prime Minister at the top of page 377 of the Order Paper? If the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) feels that this is abuse, should he not have voted against what was moved in the name of the Prime Minister at 10 o'clock?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is a very old hand-if memory serves me correctly, he has now served in this House for 23 years and either seven or eight months-so he knows very well that in making that point with his characteristic force he has made a very good debating point but not a point of order.

John Randall: It is wonderful to hear your words, Mr. Speaker, because they are the voice of reason.
	The interesting point made by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North is that it would have been fantastic if we could have had this debate before 10 o'clock. In fact, there are many opportunities where we do not vote and could have had this debate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), who is second only to you, Mr. Speaker, in my esteem on these matters- [ Interruption . ] I am choosing my words very carefully. As my right hon. Friend said, there were opportunities to do this at another hour. I regret this situation, because I want to get back home to Uxbridge-in Middlesex, and still in London-but I feel so strongly that we must debate the matter that I will continue.

Stewart Jackson: Does my hon. Friend share my dismay at the omission from the Committee of the witty repartee of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound), who could bring to it the experience of living in a Conservative borough that this Christmas is giving £50 back to its residents?

John Randall: If I allow myself to go back to the heady days of the debates on the Greater London Authority Act 1999, I remember that there we were sitting there one evening, late into the night. The hon. Member for Ealing, North who, as my hon. Friend says, is a very witty Member, said that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) resembled a giraffe. I did not know what that had to do with anything, but I found out later that the hon. Gentleman was on a wager to mention the word "giraffe" in a speech. I tried to think what he himself reminded me of in the way of animals of the savannah, and all I could think of was a dik-dik, which is a small antelope.
	The point that I am making, which I think is valid, is that if we are to have a Select Committee- [Interruption.] I say to the hon. Member for somewhere north of Watford that I do not interfere in the matters of the Scottish Affairs Committee. If the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North wants to go home, he should go home. I am not forcing him to stay here. If he wants to discuss London, he should stay here; if he wants to go home to Scotland, good luck to him. Now, we should return to the important subject-

Mr. Speaker: Order. Yes, I am very happy, indeed extremely eager, that the hon. Gentleman should return to the terms of the motion. Without wanting in any way to be personal about it, may I entreat him to focus on the overall qualities of possible members of the Committee? I do not think it is seemly or appropriate for him to dilate on the physical characteristics of either the hon. Member for Croydon, South or the hon. Member for Ealing, North.

John Randall: I will bear that in mind, but I have to say that I was not actually referring to any physical proportion; I was actually talking about their spirituality. If you understood the dik-dik, which is a sly creature, alert in the undergrowth just waiting to be predated, you might find that. However, I get the general drift that we have to move on a little. We have only just started on west London.

Greg Knight: My hon. Friend gave the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) some advice a moment ago, telling him that he could go home. Is that advice available to those in all parts of the House?

John Randall: You will know, Mr. Speaker, that it is not within my power to keep anybody here. All I know is that the Order Paper states:
	"Debate may continue until any hour, if the 10.00 pm Business of the House motion is agreed to."
	I believe it was. Perhaps, given modernisation, we should consider whether we can come back tomorrow and vote on the motion. I did not realise that I was going to speak on this-

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am listening with the closest interest and respect to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, as he would anticipate, but may I say to him that although, as he rightly states, it is noted on the Order Paper that the debate "may" run until any hour, there is a difference between that and "shall" run until any hour?

John Randall: I do not really understand what "any hour" means in this sense, Mr. Speaker. Whether it is "may" or "shall", "any hour" could mean any particular time. We recognise that the House is a place for debate. I am sorry that it has come to this so late.

Anne Main: May I take my hon. Friend back to about 15 minutes into his oratory, when he talked about the suitability of particular locations for members of the Committee? Much to my chagrin, St. Albans has been designated part of the north London arc. I disagree with being part of it, because we think we are in Hertfordshire, but I completely agree that perhaps we have not looked at the right mix for the Committee.

John Randall: My hon. Friend raises a very important point, because a Regional Select Committee for London will have to address Crossrail, for example, and transport in a wider aspect. Many who commute into London do not live within London's boundaries. Therefore, it might be appropriate for those who commute from outside London to be members of the Committee.
	While we are talking about Crossrail, which I am, I wonder how many hon. Members named in the motion will be affected by it. Some will be, and it is good that they will be represented, but there is also the question of London underground, which is a very important matter to my constituents-I mentioned Heathrow earlier, but the underground is also important. I am looking through the list here, and I am not too sure how many of the hon. Members on it have underground stations in their constituencies, although rather peculiarly, even if they do, someone else might say, "What about the overground?" because there might be a bias for underground.

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend will recognise that overground transport is a key issue in London. The London borough of Bromley, which I happen to represent, has something like 23 overground railway stations, but not a single Member whose constituency is on the overground has been proposed to sit on the Committee. The same applies to a number of other London boroughs. Should we not perhaps rehearse the number of London boroughs that have overground stations only, and not underground stations-

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman asks whether that matter should be rehearsed. The clear and explicit answer is no.

John Randall: Once again, Mr. Speaker, I am so grateful to you, because sometimes there is a temptation to go down the wrong line-I do not mean underground line.

Stephen Hammond: rose-

John Randall: I will give way to someone else from south of the river.

Stephen Hammond: It is a great place to come from, but one proposed member of the Committee who comes from south of the river is not here this evening. Mr. Speaker, you entreated my hon. Friend to talk about some of the qualities that the candidates will need. One is scrutiny. Does my hon. Friend want to compare and contrast the qualities of the proposed Members against the Greater London authority members who are already going to fulfil that function for us?

John Randall: My hon. Friend asks a very good question. I am not sure that I am able in any way to go down that line.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend says he thinks the Select Committee should talk about issues such as Crossrail, but people in my constituency think that an awful lot of money is spent on transport in the south-east and that we in Yorkshire do not get our fair share. Surely if the Committee is going to talk about very expensive projects such as Crossrail, there should be a Yorkshire perspective on it-I hasten to add that I am not volunteering.

John Randall: Perhaps I was a little harsh with the hon. Gentleman opposite from Scotland. Therefore, much as I would like to agree with my hon. Friend, if I was harsh with the hon. Gentleman, I have to be harsh with him, because this is a London or south-east matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) asked me-

Jim Sheridan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I just point out that I am not the Member for Scotland? I am the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North. I must say that the anti-Scottishness coming from the Opposition demonstrates why there will never be a Conservative MP in Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: That is a point of information and debate.

John Randall: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is so excited. I know it is late and that he wants to go home, but in fact, as I was saying, I have a lot of Scottish blood flowing through my veins.

Michael Gove: Like the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan), I am a Scot, and proudly so. May I say that my hon. Friend has shown me nothing but kindness during my years in this House? However, speaking on behalf of my constituents in Surrey Heath in this United Kingdom Parliament, may I draw his attention to the fact that my constituents, who depend on South West Trains, would like to see two particular Labour Members on the Committee, namely the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson), because Eurostar has moved from Waterloo and now terminates in his constituency, and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), because Waterloo, Clapham Junction and Vauxhall are the three stations whose pointing and track systems have a direct effect on the speed with which my constituents can travel from Camberley, Frimley, Bagshot, Ash Vale, Farnborough Main and Farnborough North Camp-

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have the general drift of the point.

John Randall: I thank my hon. Friend for assuring the House that I have no feelings of antipathy towards Scotland. In fact, I admire the Scots. In many respects, and speaking as a retailer, I wish that I had been Scottish myself as I would like to uphold many of their qualities.

Andrew Pelling: I am enjoying the best after-dinner speech that I have heard all year. Is not the solution to the hon. Gentleman's concern about the quality of rail services in London for Conservative Members to do the work that they are paid for and to sit on this Committee?

John Randall: When I first came into this House, there was no Greater London assembly or Mayor for London. Therefore, in 1997, the hon. Gentleman's words would have been correct. Unfortunately for him, today there are many elected members representing our boroughs in London, and therefore his point is not that well made.
	On the other hand, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) makes an extremely good point. I had almost forgotten about the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson). For many years, I was a voter in that constituency as a student. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was standing then, otherwise I might have had to consider my vote. We bearded chaps have to stick together. It is true that he would be a sane voice.
	One of the things that I find fascinating about this place-I am sure that you have observed it from your position, Mr. Speaker-is that those people on the way up sometimes do not speak as forthrightly as they do once they have been up and are on the way down. Therefore, I find that the people to whom we should listen most in this House are those who have been there, done it and do not want any more preferment. Suddenly, their words have even more credence. I know the right hon. Gentleman to be a fine Member of Parliament.

David Burrowes: Does my hon. Friend think that those hon. Members suggested for the Committee are on their way up or on their way down?

John Randall: If my hon. Friend asks about our hon. Friends, I might give him an opinion, but I will not speak for the Government Benches-

Nick Brown: On a point of order, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman. He will not speak for the Government, but I will. I beg to move that the question be now put- [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not require any help from the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway). For the avoidance of doubt, I can tell hon. Members that when appointments to other Select Committees are contested, Standing Order No. 15(1)(c) provides for a debate for up to one hour before the question is put. That is the conclusive response to the hon. Gentleman.

Nick Brown: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
	 Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 211, Noes 131.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Motion made , and Question put accordingly,
	That Ms Karen Buck, Jeremy Corbyn, Clive Efford, Siobhain McDonagh, Mr Andy Slaughter and Mr Andrew Pelling be members of the London Regional Select Committee.
	 The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 124.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	delegated legislation

Motion made,
	That the Major Accident Off-Site Emergency Plan (Management of Waste from Extractive Industries) (England and Wales) Regulations 2009 (S.I., 2009, No. 1927), dated 16 July 2009, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.- (Helen Jones.)

Hon. Members: Object.
	 Ordered,
	That the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Conditional Cautions: Financial Penalties) Order 2009 (S.I., 2009, No. 2773), dated 15 October 2009, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee. -(Helen Jones.)

Sittings of the House

Motion made,
	That-
	(1) Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business) shall have effect for this Session with the following modifications, namely:
	In paragraph (4) the word 'eight' shall be substituted for the word 'thirteen' in line 42 and in paragraph (5) the word 'fifth' shall be substituted for the word 'eighth' in line 44;
	(2) Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees) shall have effect for this Session with the following modification, namely:
	In paragraph (2) the word 'fifth' shall be substituted for the word 'eighth' in line 21; and
	(3) Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 29 January; 5 and 26 February; 5 and 12 March; 23 and 30 April; and 7 May.- (Helen Jones.)

Hon. Members: Object.

Home affairs

Ordered,
	That Ms Karen Buck be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr Khalid Mahmood be added. -(Mr. McAvoy, on behalf of the Committee of Selection..)

PETITIONS

Badman Report (Newark)

Patrick Mercer: I rise to present a petition on behalf of 25 of my constituents who
	are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials.
	They also
	believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [ The Petition of persons resident in the Newark parliamentary constituency,
	 Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc. ]
	[P000498]

Badman Report (Romford)

Andrew Rosindell: In the same vein as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), on behalf of the constituents of Romford, I would like to present a petition of no fewer than the names of 14 parents who are deeply concerned about the recommendations of the Badman report and the possible detrimental changes to home education. I urge the Government to rethink their policy on this.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [The Petition of persons resident in the Romford parliamentary constituency,
	 Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P000622]

Equitable Life (West Dorset)

Oliver Letwin: Although I tabled the early-day motion on the Badman report, I rise to present a petition on behalf of constituents of mine who are concerned about the Equitable Life saga and, in particular, the failure of Her Majesty's Government to fulfil, in full, the recommendations of the ombudsman. That subject has been much debated in this House.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to uphold the constitutional standing of the Parliamentary Ombudsman by complying-
	in full-
	with the findings and recommendations of her Report upon Equitable Life.
	 Following is the full text of the petition.
	 [ The Petition of residents of the constituency of West Dorset,
	 Declares that the Petitioners either are or they represent or support members, former members or personal representatives of deceased members of the Equitable Life Assurance Society who have suffered maladministration leading to injustice, as found by the Parliamentary Ombudsman in her report upon Equitable Life, ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 16 July 2008 and bearing reference number HC 815; and further declares that the Petitioners or those whom they represent or support have suffered regulatory failure on the part of the public bodies responsible from the year 1992 onwards, but have not received compensation for the resulting losses and outrage.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to uphold the constitutional standing of the Parliamentary Ombudsman by complying with the findings and recommendations of her Report upon Equitable Life.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc. ]
	[P000454]

Badman Report (Castle Point)

Bob Spink: I believe that the state does not always know better than the parents how they should bring up and educate their children. I am, therefore, delighted to present this petition on the Badman report, which has been signed by a number of my very caring and well-informed constituents. They are right to be concerned.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [ The Petition of persons resident in the Castle Point parliamentary constituency,
	 Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc. ]
	[P000628]

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Helen Jones.)

Gordon Prentice: I am very grateful for this opportunity to raise the issue of the processing of freedom of information requests. This concerns the Information Commissioner and how freedom of information requests are dealt with, and it is a very sorry tale. The Information Commissioner enforces and oversees the Data Protection Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act, the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. The span of responsibilities is very wide, but the Information Commissioner's office is simply not coping. There are big issues to address in respect of how the Information Commissioner's office is staffed, managed and resourced. Curiously, its funding comes from the Ministry of Justice, which also provides advice to all Departments on freedom of information cases and issues.
	The Information Commissioner's office has a huge backlog of hundreds of cases, which go back to 2005. I have in my hand a copy of the "case load snapshot" that the Information Commissioner published in September. It runs to about 30 closely typed pages, and about 30 to 40 cases are listed on each page. The system is just gumming up. Some of the requests seem fairly trivial. For example, information was requested about the names of individuals holding parliamentary passes from the Association of Former Members of Parliament and the Industry and Parliament Trust; that request goes back 16 months. A request relating to the use of pseudonyms by the Cabinet Office dates back 15 months; another, relating to the royalties paid to the estate of the composer of "Sailing By" on Radio 4 dates back a year. And so the list goes on, page after page.
	I raised this issue in the summer Adjournment debate on 21 July, when I referred to the director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, Maurice Frankel, who had just written a piece in  The Guardian, which said that the Freedom of Information Act is "toothless". He complained about the backlog of cases and the budget shortfall, saying that all that was making the Act toothless. He said that
	"on average it takes eight months before an investigation into a complaint even begins. More than a quarter of cases wait for over a year" -
	just to get started. He went on to say that
	"46 per cent. of cases took between 1 and 2 years from complaint to decision notice",
	and that an astonishing quarter of all cases
	"took between 2 and 3 years to"
	reach a decision.
	How on earth did we find ourselves in this situation? I ask that because there is a memorandum of understanding between the Government and the Information Commissioner-I suppose one could call it a protocol. It specifies how long it should take to deal with freedom of information requests. It states that the Government Department concerned should
	"provide all relevant information...as quickly as possible and in any event within 20 working days".
	If the Department is asked for additional information, that should be provided
	"within 10 working days of it being requested".
	That is the theory, but the fact is that these deadlines are not being met.
	If the Information Commissioner believes that a Government Department is withholding information, he can serve an information notice and the Department or public authority is obliged to comply. However, the commissioner has been very dilatory in issuing these information notices. Very few have been lodged with the Cabinet Office, and I found out only a few days ago that no information notice was issued in response to delays in coming forward with information that I had requested about the noble Lord Ashcroft. My own request is listed in the snapshot I have here and is dated 4 April 2008, 20 months ago. I requested information about Lord Ashcroft, his UK residency and his subsequent elevation to the House of Lords.
	I say all this in parenthesis, but we know that the story goes back nine years to when Michael Ashcroft was elevated to the House of Lords. He gave an explicit undertaking at that time that he would bring his tax affairs onshore. When he was considered for his life peerage on the recommendation of the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the then Leader of the Conservative Opposition, No. 10 Downing street issued a statement in March 2000, which said:
	"In order to meet the requirements for a Working Peer, Mr Michael Ashcroft has given his clear and unequivocal assurance that he will take up permanent residence in the United Kingdom...before the end of the calendar year."
	That is, he would become a UK resident for tax purposes. The undertaking was endorsed by the Member for Richmond, Yorks, the then leader of the Conservative party. Nine years down the line, we still do not know if Lord Ashcroft is a permanent resident for tax purposes.
	In a sense, I anticipated all this-sometimes I can see the future. Two years ago, I introduced my Disqualification from Parliament (Taxation Status) Bill. It received a Second Reading on 28 January 2008 but ran out of time and did not get into Committee. I have to say that the Government, at that stage, were sympathetic. Now we find ourselves in the Alice in Wonderland situation where the Leader of the Opposition wants to introduce legislation to require all Members of Parliament-Commons and Lords-to be UK taxpayers, yet only a few days ago, on 7 December, he said that the tax affairs of Members of the House of Lords were private matters for them. Now he has changed his mind. We know about Zac Goldsmith and so on, so I need not go into that; but until Zac Goldsmith I thought it inconceivable that someone who was non-domiciled would seek to be a Member of this House of Commons.
	My Government's position on this is very disappointing. I tabled a parliamentary question a week or so ago, asking them to amend their own Bill-the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill-to exclude from membership all those who were non-domiciled. Although the Government said that they agreed with the idea, they would not table an amendment to that effect. That disappoints me. If and when the Liberal Democrats table their amendment, I shall support it. I shall table one myself, and if it is selected I shall ask my friends on the Government Benches to vote for it. It is a mystery to me why the Government are taking that position.
	I shall not go through the chronology of the 20 months in which my request was in the system, but I will say that I first raised this matter with the Cabinet Secretary in November 2007. I wanted to know two simple facts-the nature of the undertaking that was given by Michael Ashcroft and to whom it was given. I was told by the Cabinet Secretary that I could not have that information because, first, it was exempted under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 because it related to the conferring by the Crown of an honour or dignity; and secondly, because information would have been given in confidence and that confidence had to be protected. So, my request was turned down. I subsequently appealed to the permanent secretary for Government communication at the Cabinet Office, and my appeal was rejected. I find that difficult to take, because I believe that if someone is placed in the legislature and if they vote and speak on matters that come before the House of Lords, they should be a UK taxpayer. If there is any doubt about whether a person is a UK taxpayer, there is a public interest in disclosure and that public interest is sufficient to override any obligation of confidence.

David Drew: As my hon. Friend knows, in the United States every person who stands for election has to make a financial disclosure. Does he agree that what is good enough for the US is good enough for the UK?

Gordon Prentice: I agree. It is astonishing that we in the UK Parliament tax our fellow citizens but might not be taxpayers ourselves.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has now been in parenthesis for about seven minutes. This debate, on his chosen title, is about the processing of freedom of information requests. He cannot use it to make a personal attack on a Member of the other place.

Gordon Prentice: I would not dream of launching a personal attack on another Member of Parliament, whether elected or unelected. I was simply setting the context. I was going to run through the chronology of this affair, including the e-mails that have travelled between me and the staff of the Information Commissioner's office. In some of that correspondence, I was told that I would get the information in two, three or four weeks' time, or that the information was just around the corner and that I was to bear with the office, because it almost had the information. I have the chronology here, but I would not embarrass the individuals concerned. I would give them different names, because they are not responsible for the situation in which they found themselves. It is the people at the top, who are running the Information Commissioner's office, who have mismanaged things. They have mismanaged staff or have not made the right decisions to ensure that when people ask the commissioner for help, they get it in a timely fashion. It is unacceptable to wait for years to get decision notices on matters of great import. The matter that I have been talking about, in parenthesis, is one of huge import.
	Let me wind the reel forward to this month, when it became known that Mr. Speaker had granted me this Adjournment debate. I discovered at the beginning of the month that the staff member who had been dealing with my freedom of information request was a temporary secondee from the Ministry of Justice, and that he had gone back to the Ministry without my case having been resolved. Then the penny dropped. I was about to have an Adjournment debate; I could name names and I had the chronology. On Friday, I received a letter from the Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham-who has not been long in post; about six months. His letter is conciliatory. He tells me that "the state of affairs" in the Information Commissioner's office is
	"admittedly unsatisfactory, but there is good evidence that the situation is being turned around, albeit slowly".
	He also tells me that he will be more robust in issuing information notices that would force recalcitrant Departments and other authorities to act.
	That is a good thing, but the thing that really warmed my heart-if you will allow me to say this, Mr. Deputy Speaker-was that the Information Commissioner has as good as promised that there will be a decision about the Lord Ashcroft request by the end of January. He says:
	"I understand that you are frustrated by the delays at the ICO and have been pressing the new case officer, recently allocated to the case, for an indication as to when the Decision Notice might be issued. This looks likely to be sometime in the New Year. I hope this can be achieved before the end of January but the new case officer has had to seek further information"-
	Can you get this? Further information-
	"from the Cabinet Office in order to complete his investigation."
	After 20 months, he is seeking further information. In the long run we are all dead. In six months' time I may no longer be a Member of Parliament-the odds are that I will not be-yet the issue drags on interminably. However, the letter gives me some hope.
	What do I want? The Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who chairs the Justice Committee, is in the Chamber. The Committee held a pre-appointment confirmation hearing when Christopher Graham was appointed, and at the time it and Mr. Graham acknowledged that there was a backlog that had to be tackled. I want the Committee to bring Mr. Graham before it to quiz him about the delays, and I have written to the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed about that. I hope the Committee responds expeditiously to my request.
	The second thing I want is no further slippage in the timetable for responding to my freedom of information request about Lord Ashcroft. I really do want the matter settled next month.
	Thirdly, and finally, I want my own Government to table amendments to their own Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill to ban non-domiciled persons from Parliament. If the Government do not do that, other people will.

Michael Wills: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on securing the debate and on raising some important points, which he did with his customary vigour.
	I understand and share his views on the importance of freedom of information and its implementation. This is not a sorry tale, as my hon. Friend suggested, but something of which the Government are extremely proud. We brought in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and overall there is no question but that the legislation has been successful in enabling the public better to understand and engage with public authorities. I have huge respect for Maurice Frankel, but one point-the quote given by my hon. Friend that the legislation was toothless-is manifestly not the case. Of all places in the United Kingdom, the House is the last place that would regard freedom of information as toothless.
	That is not to say that there are not real problems with implementation, and my hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to them. We are deeply conscious of them in Government. It is worth putting them in context. The new legislation is radical and as always with such matters, it has taken time to bed down. It is not as if anyone has been insouciant or careless about the problems that my hon. Friend described.
	It is worth remembering that the freedom of information legislation gave the right to request official information from a huge range of public authorities, including all central Government Departments. It has provided unprecedented access to information held by more than 100,000 public authorities. As a result, a range of previously inaccessible information has entered the public domain.
	Inevitably, that will pose challenges to all those public authorities and to the Information Commissioner's Office. My hon. Friend is right. We must be vigilant and we must respond to the challenges. The Government, the Department and I as the Minister responsible for freedom of information are all working consistently and constantly with the Information Commissioner's Office to meet those challenges, including the backlog of cases.
	Of course my hon. Friend is right. It is unacceptable that the backlog should continue. We are giving the Information Commissioner's Office more money. For the present financial year, the Government have given a further £500,000 of funding for the ICO, in addition to the baseline funding of £5 million. That has taken place in an extremely challenging economic context. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that that demonstrates our commitment to making sure that the radical legislation delivers as it was meant to. Central Government also provided the ICO with additional funding above its baseline amounting to £1.3 million between 2005 and 2008.
	The additional funding is complemented by the secondment of Whitehall staff to the ICO, as my hon. Friend mentioned. That is an attempt to improve the performance of the Information Commissioner's Office. It also gives Whitehall officials a chance to experience what that is like, so they bring that knowledge back to their Departments. I hope that that will improve the performance of those Departments in responding to freedom of information requests.
	My hon. Friend insinuated that the delay may have been because the secondee who was dealing with his request came from the Ministry of Justice. He is wrong. There is no question but that central Government officials who are seconded to the ICO are impartial. My hon. Friend may wish to note that all casework undertaken at the Information Commissioner's Office, including the issuing of information notices and decision notices, is supervised by permanent staff. Decision notices are signed off by senior management, often the Deputy Commissioner or assistant commissioners. I hope that will reassure my hon. Friend that there is nothing untoward about this. It is, nevertheless, a problem.
	As my hon. Friend mentioned, there is a new Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, who has been in post for about six months. He has said that he wants to
	"put a shock through the . . . system",
	and that the clearance of the unacceptable backlog is one of his top priorities. He has also said that he wants to clear the majority of the backlog by January, and he has put in place a number of measures to deliver on that. He has shown commendable resolve in tackling it.
	Christopher Graham has also said that cases will be prioritised, based on the nature of information that is disputed in each case. He is concerned that too many decision notices are produced to a
	"gold standard with eleven pages of legal argument that would survive a prolonged case in the European Court of Human Rights",
	where often a more concise consideration would do.
	I do not think that the system is gumming up, as my hon. Friend suggests. There is a problem, but we have already seen significant improvements. Despite a significant increase in the business of the Information Commissioner this year-freedom of information appeals are up by 29 per cent.-the commissioner is closing cases at a faster rate, 34 per cent. faster in quarter 2 of 2009 compared with quarter 2 of 2008. There has been a reduction in the backlog of cases to 1,166 from 1,491 in April, including a reduction in the number of cases more than a year old from 436 to 278, which is a 36 per cent. drop in eight months. There is still a long way to go. My hon. Friend is right to raise the matter, but I hope that he will accept that the system is far from gumming up. We are beginning to see real improvements.
	Clearly, if the Information Commissioner is to make the progress that we all want him to make, he will require co-operation from Departments and other public bodies. They do have to respond in a timely fashion, and the Government are responding to that challenge. We have communicated throughout Whitehall the need to work closely with the commissioner at senior levels in all Departments, and through the better freedom of information programme, which the Ministry of Justice runs, we are sharing best practice to help Departments to deal with requests and complaints more efficiently.
	As my hon. Friend said, Departments are expected to respond to correspondence with the Information Commissioner's Office in accordance with the provisions of the memorandum of understanding, which my hon. Friend set out. He may be interested to know that the Ministry of Justice is reviewing the memorandum with the Information Commissioner, and we will of course take into account the issues that my hon. Friend has raised today.
	My hon. Friend referred to cases in which delays occur but the nature of the information is straightforward. Sometimes things are not quite as straightforward as they might at first appear, but even complex information must be dealt with quickly and in accordance with the memorandum. I accept that point. In extreme cases, section 77 of the 2000 Act makes it a criminal offence for any public authority or any employee of any public authority to alter, deface, block, erase, destroy or conceal any record to avoid disclosure. That is a strong deterrent to any public authority that might be minded to evade, or to seek to evade, the requirements of the Act.
	We have also invited the Information Commissioner to let us know whether he believes that Departments are delaying unduly, so that we can pursue the matter. My hon. Friend is quite right to raise those delays. They are unacceptable, we need to do better and we are doing better. We are moving forward. We are publishing more information proactively, and I am trying to encourage the chief executives of every local authority to publish their performance statistics on meeting freedom of information requests, so that there is greater transparency among local authorities. They are often a source of very important information for people, and that is one of the main benefits of the Act.
	We are keen to extend the benefits of the Act further, so we are consulting a number of public bodies with a view to bringing them under the legislation's coverage. Subject to the outcome of that consultation, the Act could cover more public bodies, including UCAS, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Financial Ombudsman Service and scores of academy trusts.
	We set up the Dacre review to review the implementation of the 30-year rule, and the Prime Minister has already announced the Government's intention, in responding to the review, to reduce the 30-year rule to 20 years. That is a significant step, and it will result in more information reaching the public domain sooner than it otherwise would have.
	My hon. Friend asked for three things in concluding his remarks. The first two are not a matter for me, and I hope that he will forgive me if I do not comment on specific cases. On the third of his requests, however, I can say to him-I think that he is well aware of this-that the Government's principled position is exactly the same as his: of course people who are not domiciled in this country should not sit in the legislature. That is a clear position of principle. My hon. Friend will be aware that we are bringing forward measures that relate to the House of Lords, so that its Members cannot be non-domiciled and still sit in that Chamber. He will be aware also that we are actively considering how best we can bring in similar measures for this House, so I hope that that provides him with some comfort.
	I very much hope that my hon. Friend will get the answers-or at least an answer-that he seeks from the Information Commissioner within the time frame that he has mentioned. I accept that he has waited far too long for an answer. Whatever the answer, he should receive it in a timely fashion, and we are endeavouring to ensure that that takes place. We have a long way to go, but we are making considerable progress, and I hope that that provides some reassurance to my hon. Friend.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.